= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
math_viking comments on How to debate when authority is questioned, but really not needed? - 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 (41)
What does that mean? I would expect no one's claims to be flawless, but even if OP claimed the sky is green, claiming that he is wrong because he's not a physicist is still wrong.
They seem pretty much like obvious examples of fallacies to me.
Your suggestions are possible ways to segue from what OP said into a better discussion, but the replies quoted or paraphrased above aren't conducive to such a discussion.
Let's say you debate with multiple people "Why is the sky blue and not green"?
(a) A philosopher
(b) A linguist
(c) A physicist
(d) A five year old child
All those debates are different. It's very useful to ask at the beginning of the debate where the other person is common from when you want to target arguments.
Sure, but I think the follow-up responses make it clear the other commenter isn't looking for a real discussion.
I think you are right, the follow-up responses are what indicate the fallacy intention (conscious or not).
For some value of wrong. But the claim that the Fed is literally printing money js also wrong, for some value of wrong. Its like youre saying one side in the discussion deserves charity, and the other doesn't.
Random Commentator's comment was not "You are not an economist, so you are wrong", it was "Are you an economist?". That can .be read as a legitimate concern about understanding the topic.
Jumping on people for making "obvious fallacies" that actually arent explicitly stated at all , is probably a reflection of bias on the part of the jump-.er.
(The Ancient Geeks Law: Any comment by anybody in any discussion will look like an obvious fallacy under a sufficiently uncharitable interpretation)
....when read without the charity you are extending to the OPs claims.
What does that mean? Maybe you have decided that even if charity is extended, or middle ground sought, nothing good will come of it. But have you tested that, or is it all in your head?
In the paraphrased or hypothetical exchanges above, OP at least made a claim that could be evaluated, and the other commenters dismissed even the possibility that they had anything worthwhile to say for pretty poor reasons. They didn't make any actual argument to give any charity to. "What experience do you have with economics?" and "what solutions do you propose?" are perfectly valid questions, but the other commenters follow-up doesn't continue the discussion, it seeks to end it.
The OP made a comment that is evaluable, and comes .it as irrelevant when read uncharitably: no one is literally printing money. "What experience do you have with economics?" could charitably be read as the argument "you need to understand economics to have a worthwhile opinion on quantitative easing"
Who the OP is does affect the prior probability that he is wrong. If the majority of economics viewpoints held by non-economists is wrong (which is a big if), then the commentators would be justified in assigning near-zero amount of credence in what he's saying. If the OP presented a detailed, technical argument in favor of his positions, then this would "screen out" OP's level of experience. But barring such an argument, the commentators may have a point.
That being said, the average internet commentator may not be the best conversation partner.