= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on List of Fully General Counterarguments - 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 (42)
Another:
"What observation would convince you?"
The beauty of this one is that the better established the idea you're arguing against, the stronger this argument becomes.
That's not exactly a counterargument, more a way to establish whether the other person could be swayed in any way.
"How could there be such a thing! it is true so there can be no such thing!" (fair enough, walk away, no point)
vs
"Well if we found some concrete and repeatable/observable example of matter/energy being created or destroyed that couldn't be explained then I'd accept that the law of conservation of energy could be bunk"
As an argument it doesn't actually counter anything but it might cause some of the audience/participants to give up and walk away.
"Aha! So you ADMIT that scientists can't prove perpetual motion impossible. They educated stupid suppress my work because they have no answer! Time is four-sided!"
FGAs do not come alone.
to which the best response is to give up and walk away, if the person is arguing from a fundamentally different set of precepts FGA or no there's no point.
that same person could also argue that their position is true because Kermit the frog has decreed as such.
The insidious subtly of FGA's is that in a rational argument between sensible people an FGA can be used without anyone saying things which are obviously untrue or obviously stupid/insane. It's simply that an FGA is so broad that either side could use the FGA and have it feel like it supports their position.