I disagree with much of what is in the linked essay. One doesn't have to explicitly state an ad hominim premise to be arguing ad hominimly. Any non sequitur that is coincidentally designed to lower an arguer’s status is ad hominim in my book. Those statements have no other purpose but to create a silent premise: "My opponent is a tainted, therefore his arguments are bad." One can make ad hominim statements without actually saying them by using innuendo.

On the other hand ad hominim isn't even necessarily a fallacy. Of course an argument cannot become wrong just because a stupid person says it but we can expect that on average people with a bad track record in arguing will continue to argue poorly and people with good track records will argue well. In that sense we can set priors for someone's arguments being right before hearing them. Just remember to update afterwards. We actually do this all the time whether we admit it or not. We trust more what someone with a PHD in physics has to say about physics than a creationist. Saying that an argument is wrong because a stupid/bad person said it is of course fallacious, it's an attempt to reverse stupidity to get intelligence. However expecting people who normally say stupid things to continue to do so is Bayes compliant.

I see the ad hominim "fallacy" concept as more of an injunction or a hack if you will for human reasoners. It reminds us to examine the substance of the arguments of people we disagree with instead of dismissing them for political reasons. A perfect Bayesian mind could set up priors for people being right and impartially examine their arguments and update correctly without being swept up by political instincts. For humans on the other hand it might be more practical to focus on the substance exclusively and not the messengers unless the gap of expertise is huge (eg. PHD physicist vs. creationist on physics).

I don't understand. Am I too dumb or is this gibberish?

"You can't build build Deep Blue by programming a good chess move for every possible position."

Syntax error: Subtract one 'build'.

I wonder if liars or honest folk are happier and or more successful in life.

We are missing something. Humans are ultimatly driven by emotions. We should look for which emotions beliefs tap into in order to understand why people seek or avoid certain beliefs.

I thought of some more. -there is a destiny/Gods plan/reason for everything: i.e. some powerful force is making things the way they are and it all makes sense(in human terms, not cold heartless math). That means you are safe but don't fight the status quo. -everything is connected with "energy"(mystically): you or special/chosen people might be ably to tap into this "energy". You might glean information you normally shouldn't have or gain some kind of special powers. -Scientists/professionals/experts are "elitists". -Mystery is good: It makes life worth while. Appreciating it makes us human. As opposed to destroying it being good. That's it for now.

-faith: i.e. unconditional belief is good. It's like loyalty. Questioning beliefs is like betrayal. -The saying "Stick to your guns.": Changing your mind is like diserting your post in a war. Sticking to a belief is like being a heroic soldier. -The faithfull: i.e. us, we are the best, god is on our side. -the infedels: i.e. them, sinners, barely human, or not even. -God: Infenetly powerful alpha male. Treat him as such with all the implications... -The devil and his agents: They are always trying to seduce you to sin. Any doubt is evedence the devil is seducing you to sin and suceeding. Anyone opposed to your beliefs is cooperating with/being influenced by the devil. -Assasination fatwas: Whacking people who are anti-Islam is the will of Allah. -a sexually satisfying lifestyle is bad: This makes people more angsty(especially young men). This angst is your fault and it's sin. To be less angsty you should be less sinful ergo fight your sexual urges. And so the cycle of desire, guilt, angst and confusion continues. -no masturbation: see above. -you are born in debt to Jesus because he died for your sins 2000 years ago. That's all I could think of right now.

Ok, maybe my last post was a bit harsh(it's tricky to express oneself over the Internet). I will elaborate further. Eliezer said:

"So here are the traditional values of capitalism as seen by those who regard it as noble - the sort of Way spoken of by Paul Graham, or P. T. Barnum (who did not say "There's a sucker born every minute"), or Warren Buffett:"

I don't know much about the latter two but I have read Paul Graham extensively. It sounds like a strawman to me when Eliezer says:

"I regard finance as more of a useful tool than an ultimate end of intelligence - I'm not sure it's the maximum possible fun we could all be having under optimal conditions. I'm more sympathetic than this to people who lose their jobs, because I know that retraining, or changing careers, isn't always easy and fun. I don't think the universe is set up to reward hard work; and I think that it is entirely possible for money to corrupt a person."

So if we come back to Paul Graham, while reading his essays I've never got the impression that he... -regards finance as the ultimate end of intelligence, -thinks capitalism is the maximum possible fun we could all be having under optimal conditions, -is not sympathetic to people who lose their jobs, -thinks the universe is set up to reward hard work(proportionately as a physical law), -or that money doesn't corrupt people.

That's why I think the post gives off the vibe of a strawman. Look, capitalism isn't perfect but you need better arguments to dismiss it. Am I being too harsh again? Alright, maybe Eliezer isn't trying to dismiss capitalism in his post but then what is he actually trying to say? All I got from the post was a weak attempt at refuting things nobody actually believes. If I misunderstand please explain.

The post wasn't narrow enough to make a point. Elizier stated: "I regard finance as more of a useful tool than an ultimate end of intelligence - I'm not sure it's the maximum possible fun we could all be having under optimal conditions." Are we talking pre or post a nanotech OS running the solar system? In the latter case most of these "values" would become irrelevant. However given the world we have today, I can confidently say that capitalism is pretty awesome. There is massive evidence to back up my claim.

It smells like Eliezer is trying to refute a strawman. Specifically, I mean that there are probably few intelligent people who think of capitalism as a win-win all around. Capitalism is a compromise, it's the best we could come up with so far.

Good post but this whole crisis of faith business sounds unpleasant. One would need Something to Protect to be motivated to deliberately venture into this masochistic experience.