= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Carinthium comments on Skepticism about Probability - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (129)
Why are you applying ad hominem selectively? You wouldn't use an ad hominem argument in most things- why is the skeptic an exception?
This isn't ad-hominem. I don't care which skeptic it is. I'm simply pointing out a pretty severe inconsistency between stated beliefs and actions. I use a similar tactic on a lot of topics where I don't have the time or skill to do ground-up research (and to help decide where it's worth the time). If the proponents of an idea behave very inconsistently with the idea, I update more strongly on their behavior than their statements.
The skeptic is making a prediction, that there is no probability or causality (they usually say "there is no basis for" rather than "there is no", but a quick recital of Tarski makes them equivalent). Anything can happen! If observed actions are inconsistent with that belief, that's evidence I should update on.
Note that the skeptic can't use this information, because there's no justification for belief that observation has any information about reality.
Ad hominem represents arguing based not on the evidence but on the character of the person giving it. This is bad because it leads people to instinctively ignore arguments from those they dismiss rather than considering them.
In this case it is also circular, as you presume the existence of the skeptic which you should not be able to know.
Wait. How do you justify any belief in what any statement or action will "lead people to" do?
In reality, I believe non-skepticism on religious faith whilst thinking that rationally speaking skepticism is true. I slip up from time to time.
I should note, however, that a lot of my argument is that the rules of logic themselves suggest problems with beliefs as they currently stand- namely those surrounding circular arguments.