My problem with the “shared vocabulary” is that as you note yourself here, it implies that something has already been thought through, and it assumes that you have understood the thing properly. So for example if you reject an argument because “that’s an example of a motte and bailey fallacy”, then this only works if it is in fact correct to reject arguments for that reason.
And I don’t think it is correct. One reason why people use a motte and bailey is that they are looking for some common ground with their interlocutor. Take one of Scott’s examples, with this motte and bailey:
God is just the order and love in the universe
God is an extremely powerful supernatural being who punishes my enemies
When the person asserts #1, it is not because they do not believe #2. It is because they are looking for some partial expression of their belief that the other person might accept. In their understanding, the two statements do not contradict one another, even though obviously the second claims a good deal more than the first.
Now Scott says that #1 is “useless,” namely that even if he could theoretically accept the word “God” as applying to this, there is no reason for him to do this, because there is nowhere to go from there. And this might be true. But the fact that #2 is false does not prove that it is true. Most likely, if you work hard, you can find some #3, stronger than #1, but weaker than #2, which will also be defensible.
And it would be right to tell them to do the work that is needed. But it would be wrong to simply say, “Oh, that’s a motte and bailey” and walk away.
This is not merely a criticism of this bit of shared vocabulary, so that it would just be a question of getting the right shared vocabulary. A similar criticism will apply to virtually any possible piece of shared vocabulary—you are always assuming things just by using the vocabulary, and you might be wrong in those assumptions.
Making shared vocabulary common and explicit usually makes it faster to iterate. For example, the EA community converged on the idea of replaceability as an important heuristic for career decisions for a while, and then realized that they’d been putting too much emphasis there and explicitly toned it down. But the general concept had been floating around in discussion space already, giving it a name just made it easier to explicitly think about.
I think I agree with this in one sense and disagree in another. In particular, in regard to “giving it a name just made it easier to explicitly think about” :
I agree that this makes it easier to reason about, and therefore you might come to conclusions faster and so on, even correctly.
I don’t agree that we really made it easier to think about. What we actually did is make it less necessary to think about it at all, in order to come to conclusions. You can see how this works in mathematics, for example. One of the main purpose of the symbols is to abbreviate complicated concepts so that you don’t have to think through them every time they come up.
I think the second point here is also related to my objection in the previous comment. However, overall, the first point might be overall more important, so that the benefit outweighs the costs, especially in terms of benefit to a community.
My problem with the “shared vocabulary” is that as you note yourself here, it implies that something has already been thought through, and it assumes that you have understood the thing properly. So for example if you reject an argument because “that’s an example of a motte and bailey fallacy”, then this only works if it is in fact correct to reject arguments for that reason.
And I don’t think it is correct. One reason why people use a motte and bailey is that they are looking for some common ground with their interlocutor. Take one of Scott’s examples, with this motte and bailey:
God is just the order and love in the universe
God is an extremely powerful supernatural being who punishes my enemies
When the person asserts #1, it is not because they do not believe #2. It is because they are looking for some partial expression of their belief that the other person might accept. In their understanding, the two statements do not contradict one another, even though obviously the second claims a good deal more than the first.
Now Scott says that #1 is “useless,” namely that even if he could theoretically accept the word “God” as applying to this, there is no reason for him to do this, because there is nowhere to go from there. And this might be true. But the fact that #2 is false does not prove that it is true. Most likely, if you work hard, you can find some #3, stronger than #1, but weaker than #2, which will also be defensible.
And it would be right to tell them to do the work that is needed. But it would be wrong to simply say, “Oh, that’s a motte and bailey” and walk away.
This is not merely a criticism of this bit of shared vocabulary, so that it would just be a question of getting the right shared vocabulary. A similar criticism will apply to virtually any possible piece of shared vocabulary—you are always assuming things just by using the vocabulary, and you might be wrong in those assumptions.
Making shared vocabulary common and explicit usually makes it faster to iterate. For example, the EA community converged on the idea of replaceability as an important heuristic for career decisions for a while, and then realized that they’d been putting too much emphasis there and explicitly toned it down. But the general concept had been floating around in discussion space already, giving it a name just made it easier to explicitly think about.
I think I agree with this in one sense and disagree in another. In particular, in regard to “giving it a name just made it easier to explicitly think about” :
I agree that this makes it easier to reason about, and therefore you might come to conclusions faster and so on, even correctly.
I don’t agree that we really made it easier to think about. What we actually did is make it less necessary to think about it at all, in order to come to conclusions. You can see how this works in mathematics, for example. One of the main purpose of the symbols is to abbreviate complicated concepts so that you don’t have to think through them every time they come up.
I think the second point here is also related to my objection in the previous comment. However, overall, the first point might be overall more important, so that the benefit outweighs the costs, especially in terms of benefit to a community.