This doesn’t address the problem with that particular comment. What you implied is well-known, the problem I pointed out was not that it’s hard to figure out, but that you protected your argument in a weasely form of expression.
It sounds as though you would like to criticise an argument that you think I am implicitly making—but since I never actually made the argument, that gives you an amorphous surface to attack. I don’t plan to do anything to assist with that matter just now—other priorities seem more pressing.
It sounds as though you would like to criticise an argument that you think I am implicitly making—but since I never actually made the argument, that gives you an amorphous surface to attack. I don’t plan to do anything to assist with that matter just now—other priorities seem more pressing.
Yes, that’s exactly the problem. We all should strive to make our arguments easy to attack, errors easy to notice and address. Not having that priority hurts epistemic commons.
My argument was general—I think you want something specific.
However, preparing specific statements tailored to each of the DOOM-promoters involved is a non-trivial task, which would hurt me—by occupying my time with matters of relatively minor significance.
It would be nice if I had time available to devote to such tasks—but in the mean time, I am pretty sure the epistemic commons can get along without my additional input.
However, preparing specific statements tailored to each of the DOOM-promoters involved is a non-trivial task, which would hurt me—by occupying my time with matters of relatively minor significance.
Since significance of the matter is one of the topics under discussion, it can’t be used as an argument.
Edit: But it works as an element of a description of why certain actions take place.
What I mean is that I assign the matter relatively minor significance—so I get on with other things.
Yes, I indeed made a mistake by missing this aspect (factual description of how a belief caused actions as opposed to normative discussion of actions given the question of correctness of the belief).
As a separate matter, I don’t believe the premise is correct (that any additional effort is required to phrase things non-weasely), and thus that the belief in question plays even the explanatory role. But this is also under discussion, so I can’t use that as an argument.
There is more from me on the topic in my “DOOM!” video. Spoken out loud, nontheless ;-)
This doesn’t address the problem with that particular comment. What you implied is well-known, the problem I pointed out was not that it’s hard to figure out, but that you protected your argument in a weasely form of expression.
It sounds as though you would like to criticise an argument that you think I am implicitly making—but since I never actually made the argument, that gives you an amorphous surface to attack. I don’t plan to do anything to assist with that matter just now—other priorities seem more pressing.
Yes, that’s exactly the problem. We all should strive to make our arguments easy to attack, errors easy to notice and address. Not having that priority hurts epistemic commons.
My argument was general—I think you want something specific.
However, preparing specific statements tailored to each of the DOOM-promoters involved is a non-trivial task, which would hurt me—by occupying my time with matters of relatively minor significance.
It would be nice if I had time available to devote to such tasks—but in the mean time, I am pretty sure the epistemic commons can get along without my additional input.
Since significance of the matter is one of the topics under discussion, it can’t be used as an argument.
Edit: But it works as an element of a description of why certain actions take place.
What I mean is that I assign the matter relatively minor significance—so I get on with other things.
I am not out to persuade others whether my analysis is correct—again, I have other things to do than publicly parade an analysis of my priorities.
Maybe my priority analysis is correct. Maybe my priority analysis is wrong. In either case, it is my main reason for not doing such tasks.
Yes, I indeed made a mistake by missing this aspect (factual description of how a belief caused actions as opposed to normative discussion of actions given the question of correctness of the belief).
As a separate matter, I don’t believe the premise is correct (that any additional effort is required to phrase things non-weasely), and thus that the belief in question plays even the explanatory role. But this is also under discussion, so I can’t use that as an argument.