= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
solipsist comments on Dark Arts 101: Be rigorous, on average - LessWrong
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 (30)
Thank you for taking the time to write and edit a post.
Meta
Presenting polemics against something an in-group is already predisposed against really rubs me the wrong way. Putting down someones book can be great as a means to explain a broader point, but shouldn't be an end unto itself. The article "How not to say stupid things about undecidability" could be a cool; it might point out a flaw in my understanding of the consequences of the halting theorem or something. The article "A post-modernist wrote an argument for God, and it contains some flawed reasoning" isn't likely to surprise me, or to help me correct my thinking.
It isn't about how not to say stupid things about undecidability, though, nor about the specific flawed reasoning. It's about how he hid the flawed reasoning in a forest of excellent tangential reasoning. Well, it was supposed to be. I'd better turn down the insulting tone to avoid focusing on his errors.