= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Romashka 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 have not participated in such a debate, and I think that generally, the flowsheet/notecard logic can be useful to prepare a single volley of argumentation at the preparative stage. For example, I want to discuss X in an article; I pull up my references (notecards) and sew them onto my own points, trying to include both pro and contra, and then send the document to a friend, with an understanding that he might outright condemn such organisation. The main thing seems to be the judge and not a debater when you evaluate your own work, and to judge consistency, fullness and conciseness.