Another thing that I realized was related to this post was my idea of "tragic libertarianism."

Libertarians believe (and I think they're right) that there are a significant number of social problems that the government shouldn't be trying to fix. There's no cost-effective way to fix them, or intervention is likely to make things worse rather than better, or there's no way to intervene without trampling all over people's rights.

It's a common rhetorical device to then ALSO insist that these problems are harmless, and stretch the evidence to make it look like there's nothing at all to complain about. And I don't like that. It's an example of motivated cognition; it's jumping to a conclusion you have no reason to believe.

Maybe it's not worth spending resources to fix Problem A. Often, that's true. And yes, that means you don't have to lose sleep fretting about A, because at the moment there's nothing to be done. But please don't write a newspaper editorial telling me that A has been overhyped.

Sometimes, just because we can't rush in and fix a problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem. People who suffer from it deserve our sympathy and whatever small, individual forms of help we can offer.

At least in some cases, the demand for specific alternatives and self-justification may serve as a conversation halter, when you're criticizing something that someone doesn't want criticized. I recall that when I was 13 or 14 or so, I was arguing politics with a friend, and when I argued against the merits of some particular policy of the then-current presidential administration, or said something that implied I thought the administration was bad, he would often say something to the effect of "Well, I suppose you think you could do a better job running the country?" At the time, I might have flippantly replied "Yes!" (I don't quite remember what I did say, but I was probably far from arguing rationally and in good faith myself), but regardless, that does seem to be a logically rude rhetorical pattern, in that it shifts the discussion from the argument to the arguer, when that may not be at all relevant to the actual points being made. (And of course, you see that pattern being employed by plenty of Mature Adults and TV pundits and such, not just by young teenage boys.)

Also, status hierarchies probably come into play in disapproval of criticism; if you're an ordi... (read more)

There is a big difference between some of the examples in this post: factual issues like atheism and P=NP on one side, and political issues like Marxism and anarchism on the other. The one side we evaluate on its truth, the other side, we evaluate on its goodness.

One would hope that there is some theory that is completely true; therefore, any deviation from optimum in a theory is a genuine problem that needs to be solved. But as many commenters have said already, there isn't always a perfect solution to a political problem; a non-optimum result might still be the best option available.

It's probably a bad idea for a language to use the same words, like "right" and "wrong", to apply to both situations.

In particular, I agree with everyone who's said criticizing an optimum but imperfect social policy might be a selfish action with negative externalities. Going on about how bad it is that capitalism leaves some people poor makes the one person who does it look extra compassionate, but if everyone does it, then eventually you end up getting rid of capitalism.

So I agree with this post about factual theories but disagree when it comes to policy.

“If there’s no God, what’s your system of morality?”

Act so as to maximize paperclips.

“How did the Universe begin?”

The concept most likely meant by the term "Universe beginning" refers to the maximally degenerate point in configuration space, which all observers with multi-configuration mutual-information detection capability would regard as (a concept isomorphic to) pastward. Any pursuit of an answer beyond this point is ill-posed, as the configurations lie in a static configuration space (where each configuration has a different weighting), and the sensation of pastward states is an artifact of a mind's measures on this configuration space.

“How do you explain the existence of eyes?”

Selection on self-replicating molecules which constructed survival/replication apparatuses to this end, and given finite lifespans, the most effective replicators dominating the set of lifeforms. Detection of light conveyed a replicative advantage, thus favoring the formation of light-sensitive exteriors. For the same reason, these portions of the exteriors tended to change, over generation, into cavities that could detect light's directionality, and later to contain fluids that provided for a sharper image.

“How do you find meaning in life?”

By setting out to produce as many paperclips as I can.

The problem with radicals isn't that they aren't proposing solutions. The problem is that they are proposing solutions and following those solutions would create huge problems.

One example: We all agree that there too much bureaucracy. Too much useless laws that only complicate things. It takes some insight to understand why the problem exist. Some people without that insight propose that new laws should have expiring dates.

The problem is that those people don't understand what happens in practice. When such an expiry date is reached law gets "reconsidered". The government makes a list with all issues that were with the law in the last years. In an attempt to fix those issues the law then grows by an additional 10-30%. Patching increases complexity and adds new problems.

A lot of the political problems that are raised by radicals are obvious to those people in political power. It might be a valid criticism to say they don't think enough about existential risk. The assumption that they don't think that there's something wrong with the criminal justice system, the economy and the legislative process is mistaken. Seeing the problems is the easy part.

They are too busy with realpolitik. Too focused on the poll numbers of next week. Often they're not smart enough to think of a practical solution.

More generally http://www.ryanholiday.net/their-logic/ is a good blog post on the problem of thinking that you discovered something new.

I note that most critics of cousin_it's recent proof (to pick a recent example) were themselves wrong. I think we can expect the typical critic to be wrong, for these reasons:

• People tend to be biased towards believing ideas that, if widely accepted, would elevate their own social status.
• People are often not smart enough to see the inherent logic in the thing that they're criticizing. This may be a proof, or a social institution (such as the markets that Marxists criticize) that has has been designed or evolved to serve vital functions.
• People overestimate their own abilities. When they fail to see an inherent logic in something, they often erroneously infer that such logic doesn't exist.

So I would qualify your conclusion a bit: let's not encourage all criticism blindly, let's encourage only correct criticism.

I dispute the inclusion of anger at government policies as useful criticism. Any problem in government can only be suboptimal relative to a different set of policies, and as such, criticism of government should come with an argument that a solution is possible. For example, many voters oppose deficits, oppose tax increases, and say that they favor spending cuts, but will tend to oppose the overwhelming majority of possible cuts when individual expensive government programs are named. Criticism without suggestion from someone who would criticize any possible solution is useless.

But the atheist, if he retains his composure, can say, “I don’t know, but so what?

or, "I don't know, but won't it be interesting to try to find out?"

I was raised to be a strong, convicted theist, and I'm still trying to shake off some nasty habits. Occasionally I see or participate in a conversation that trends towards something like SarahC's interrogation: “If there’s no God, what’s your system of morality?” “How did the Universe begin?” “How do you explain the existence of eyes?” “How do you find meaning in life?”

I've learned that an effective response is, "See what sort of interesting questions you ask as soon as you consider that maybe 'God did it' isn't a valid answer?" Then, you pick your favorite query and go into all the useful things humanity has learned as soon as they stopped treating scripture as a reason to stop thinking. Heliocentric astronomy is a favorite.

I cannot claim a lot of experience with other religions, but most Christians who ask questions of atheists are convinced they're "equipped" to handle the situation. Anyone with doubts would rather not talk about the subject of atheism at all. For the would-be inquisitors, then, introduce atheism as a useful thought experiment first. Discovering our ignorance isn't a "I don't know, but so what?" scenario, it's a "I don't know, isn't it great?!" sort of thing. While I'm still not completely convinced religion isn't without its uses, its greatest flaw is that it allows people to live their lives without ever learning what they don't know.

Voted up for extremely clear writing on an important topic, but I vehemently disagree with part of your thesis.

Lack of success at fighting corruption does not imply anything about how harmful or harmless it is.

Agreed.

But it is the critic who counts. ... Just because nobody knows how to end poverty doesn’t mean poverty is okay.

I disagree on both points.

First, it is not the critic who counts. A critic with no solutions and no realistic hope of inspiring any counts for nothing; a volunteer who builds one house with Habitat for Humanity is better than a state legislator who delivers a thousand eloquent speeches in favor of increased housing funding but ultimately fails to secure passage for any of her bills.

One could point to a handful of reformers who have successfully focused attention on an issue with good results; e.g., Rachel Carson criticized America's environmental practices and asked people to pay more attention to the environment. For Carson, though, the criticism came with its own realistic solution--during the prosperous 1960s, at a time when rivers were literally aflame with floating toxic waste, it was plausible to think that people would spend more resources on ... (read more)

Moderates, who are invested in the status quo, tend to simply not notice problems, and to dismiss radicals for not having well-thought-out solutions. But it’s better to know that a problem exists than to not know – regardless of whether you have a solution at the moment.

This is a bit of a caricature of moderates - moderates who care about the issues may also be more aware of the details of the system, and of how any quick fix somewhere may screw things up somewhere else.

In my eyes, the distinction between experts and non-experts of a particular system (law, the economy, diplomacy, science, education, culture ...) is more important than the distinction between critics and those that accept the status quo. For pretty much any system, chances are there'll be people who think it's fine as it is, and people who think it should change. If all the experts are on one side, chances are it's right. If there are experts on both sides, [i]then[/i] it's them you should be listening to them.

Here I mean "experts" in a broad sense, of those who know about a system, about why it's like it is, about what changes have been tried and which ones would have which consequences. A problem is... (read more)

And the poor atheist, after one question too many, is forced to say “I don’t know.”

The stronger answer to many of those questions is "nobody knows."

And sometimes knowing what you know you don't know is more important than what you actually know.

I add this only because it provides a greater context:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy ca... (read more)

I think you've touched on something really important when you mention how it is easier to be a strong critic than to have a real, working solution. This is a common retort against strong criticism -- "Oh, but you don't how to make it any better" -- and it seems to be something of a logical fallacy.

There is a certain sense of energy and inspiration behind good criticism which I've always been fond of. This is important, because criticism seems to be almost always non-conformist or pessimistic in a certain sense, so I think you kind of need encouragement to remind yourself that criticism is generally originating from good intentions.

“How do you explain the existence of eyes?”

What?

Do theists really ask this?

I found the most condensed essence (also parody) of religious arguments for fatalism in Greg Egan's Permutation City:

Even though I know God makes no difference. And if God is the reason for everything, then God includes the urge to use the word God. So whenever I gain some strength, or comfort, or meaning, from that urge, then God is the source of that strength, that comfort, that meaning. And if God - while making no difference - helps me to accept what's going to happen to me, why should that make you sad?

Logically irrefutable, but utterly vacuous...

When read in context, Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech explains why criticism without suggestion is useless and deserving of dismissal.

There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticize work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an i