= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gleb_Tsipursky comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - 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 (275)
1) Please clarify how this article conveys Straw-Vulcanism.
2) How are you currently helping the movement?
I would say again that there's a lot of one sided analysis i.e. counting costs but not benefits, exemplar numbers plucked out of thin air without any sensitivity analysis or justification from base rates, suggested actions ("use covert operations to defeat ISIS") without any indication of whether they are feasible or worse than than the alternative you rejeced.
IMO you need to imagine a smart, rational person arguing against each point you make. In my head I use CarlShulman because he ferrets out fallacies like a bloodhound. Then you need to check whether their best argument is stronger than the original point you made, and in any case you need to anticipate that objection and put out the counterargument.
Space is limited in a 700 word op-ed, but if space is so limited that you can't really do a rational analysis then don't advertise it as such.
I hear you about not advertising it as a rational analysis, and that's not what I think I did. Instead, I stated I am writing about a rational response to the Paris attacks, as set against a specific narrative of saber-rattling. I was not attempting to give a full analysis of the situation.
I'm updating, though, on the need to give a more clear title and description. Thanks!
I suppose the problem is that LW is a more sophisticated audience than the general public. We have heard every common position on most big debates. We don't need to hear yet another article proclaiming that war iz bad. We want an article that says why war is bad, and why everyone on the other side got it wrong and how their specific arguments are flawed. That necessarily involves addressing the strongest arguments the other side has, the downsides of your own suggestions, etc.
Yeah, I understand about LW. This is why I just had a link, and not the article itself - the article is not directed at the LW audience, I was making a meta-point about promoting rational thinking in politics using this kind of article.
By calling out idiots such as yourself who are attempting to associate it with bad reasoning.