When you say
"A clear argument has to lay out an inferential pathway, starting from what the audience already knows or accepts. If you don't recurse far enough, you're just talking to yourself."
this strongly reminds me of what it is like to try talking, as an atheist, with a christian about any religious issue. I have concluded years ago that I just shouldn't try anymore, that reasonable verbal exchange is not possible...
I suppose that I should recurse... but how and how far where I am not sure.
I'm sure that the Christian feels the same way. ;D The problem there isn't inferential differences. It's belief in belief. The best way to disabuse a Christian of any false notions - under the assumption that those notions are false - would be to lead them to Less Wrong. :P
Of course, you can lead a horse to water...
When you say "A clear argument has to lay out an inferential pathway, starting from what the audience already knows or accepts. If you don't recurse far enough, you're just talking to yourself."
this strongly reminds me of what it is like to try talking, as an atheist, with a christian about any religious issue. I have concluded years ago that I just shouldn't try anymore, that reasonable verbal exchange is not possible...
I suppose that I should recurse... but how and how far where I am not sure.