= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pianoforte611 comments on Flowsheet Logic and Notecard Logic - 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 (28)
Try steelmanning these two argument styles, and you'll see that they're perfectly valid. Notecard Logic is only problematic when it turns into isolated demands for rigor; rejecting a position somebody promotes because they can't provide any evidence at all for it is perfectly valid. Flowsheet Logic is only problematic when you deliberately avoid re-raising a point in order to score "points" in an imaginary contest; failing to address meaningful points entirely is sloppy.
Downvoting because this, to me, is just an entirely undesirable expansion of the fallacy fallacy.
I think the point of notecard logic that someone using it doesn't care whether the argument was addressed appropriately. And the point of flowsheet logic is that someone using it doesn't care why an argument was unaddressed. I claim that this is a thing that happens and is very common; and is pretty difficult to confuse with legitimate desire to understand and discuss.
However, I think that fixing notecard logic doesn't get you that much closer to good epistemology. Even if your refutations are sound, if you miss the overall logical structure then you can refute anything you want. I think this is a frustrating problem here and in other online communities. Basically too many people are stuck in Stage 2.