i question whether it’s right to downvote this considering that he’s really just asking for an explanation of someone’s reasoning.
I don’t question this at all. Downvotes signal that the community thinks that the posts in question are not worth considering. As Eliezer has said, 9/11 is a “slam dunk”, and I have no problem downvoting posts advocating ridiculous theories like creationism or conspiracy theories. Hopefully, this community agrees that 9/11 conspiracy theories are not worth considering.
However ridiculous creationism or conspiracy theories may be, it’s still useful to have a clear explanation of why they are ridiculous, if only for the sake of anyone who’s not completely up to date on the topic. For the other example you named, creationism, even if creationism is extremely silly it’s still useful to have a summary of why evolution is more reasonable.
For myself, i can say that i’m not a conspiracy theorist, but i haven’t really researched this topic, so i don’t have a justification for “why ‘WTC explosives: no’ is a slam-dunk” off the top of my head. So, the discussion resulting from PlaidX’s initial question has raised at least one good point that i hadn’t thought of before.
As Eliezer has said, 9/11 is a “slam dunk”, and I have no problem downvoting posts advocating ridiculous theories like creationism or conspiracy theories. Hopefully, this community agrees that 9/11 conspiracy theories are not worth considering.
I think that the question is still valid as a way to get clarification on what constitutes a “slam dunk”. Eliezer seems to be using it in a way that doesn’t exactly mean “not worth considering”. He’s also trying to delineate certain psychological types.
I don’t question this at all. Downvotes signal that the community thinks that the posts in question are not worth considering. As Eliezer has said, 9/11 is a “slam dunk”, and I have no problem downvoting posts advocating ridiculous theories like creationism or conspiracy theories. Hopefully, this community agrees that 9/11 conspiracy theories are not worth considering.
However ridiculous creationism or conspiracy theories may be, it’s still useful to have a clear explanation of why they are ridiculous, if only for the sake of anyone who’s not completely up to date on the topic. For the other example you named, creationism, even if creationism is extremely silly it’s still useful to have a summary of why evolution is more reasonable.
For myself, i can say that i’m not a conspiracy theorist, but i haven’t really researched this topic, so i don’t have a justification for “why ‘WTC explosives: no’ is a slam-dunk” off the top of my head. So, the discussion resulting from PlaidX’s initial question has raised at least one good point that i hadn’t thought of before.
I think that the question is still valid as a way to get clarification on what constitutes a “slam dunk”. Eliezer seems to be using it in a way that doesn’t exactly mean “not worth considering”. He’s also trying to delineate certain psychological types.