Context
Imagine a conversation:
- [Bob posts a problem]
- Alice: You should use technique T₁. It especially suites this kind of problem
- Bob: In my understanding this technique is only strong in condition C. If C doesn't apply then using technique T₂ gives better result?
- Alice: Not really. T₂ cannot do A. If you have good input and execution then T₁ is still better
- Bob: But the nature of A is still C. As C doesn't apply then we don't need to care about not achieving A
- Alice: You should try it first. You are reasoning too much
Reasoning
On one hand, I understand the rationale of Alice:
- It's hard for Bob to imagine the full pros and cons of the technique without having direct experience with it
- It's hard for Alice to verbalize implicit or tacit knowledge
- It's time and effort consuming for Alice
But still, isn't that Alice doesn't focus on the important topic: giving reasons to use T₁ in this problem? She derails on the experience of Bob, which is not relevant to the argument. It's possible that Bob has already tried T₁ but fails to see its strengths on the problem, or consulted other experts and documentations to see that his assumptions haven't been challenged successfully. Regardless of the experience state, it doesn't contribute to the reasons to use T₁. I think a good explainer should be able to convince a no-experience person to abandon their initial assumptions. Of course Alice is not obligated to continue the conversation, but if she decides to continue, then she should stick to the real topic.
Questions
Therefore, I think these questions would help me validate the assumptions in the reasoning part above:
- Is it correct that when Alice says "You should try it first. You are reasoning too much", she is no longer giving reasons on why T₁ is better?
- Is it correct that the experience state of Bob isn't relevant to the reasons why T₁ is better?
- Is it correct that it's possible for one to get closer to the truth via reasoning and conversing with people with direct experience, while not having direct experience themself? After all there are theoretical scientists and experimental scientists. Isn't that theoretical scientists "think too much and try nothing", and their contributions are still valuable?
- On what basis can Alice assume that Bob hasn't tried T₁, when Bob says that T₁ is only strong in C, the nature of A is C, etc?
- Is it correct that saying "You should try it first. You are reasoning too much" is a way to shut down the conversation?
- Is it correct that shutting down the conversation is nonconstructive? Is it correct that using a irrelevant argument that looks like a relevant one is a fallacy? Is it correct that talking about Bob's experience a kind of ad hominem?
I see your point. I think it's time to tell the specifics.
There are some notes:
These info are only revealed later on. I understand that at the time of saying these are enough for Alice to conclude that Bob needs to learn more. And again, I understand that she doesn't want to waste time. But I think shutting down a conversation because of the experience state of the conversations partner is a sign of ad hominent. If she wants to save her time then she can just abandon the conversation. If she still want to give feedback while not having the burden to elaborate then she can tell Bob to read more about synonyms/context/LLM. Is that a correct thinking?