Hmm, can you give an example of the kind of back & forth you find yourself having?
The technique in this post demolishes a common type of bad argument, in which the arguer’s claim sounds meaningful when phrased in abstract terms, but turns out to be meaningless when viewed at a higher specificity level.
In your experience as I understand it, your discussion partner furnishes an example per your request, and the example seems like a valid illustration of their general claim, not something that dissolves into nothing when you try to repeat back what they’re trying to say?
In that case, it sounds like their claim might not be a meaningless one like Steve’s. But at least you can use the example to help your thought process about whether the general claim is right.
I think the Uber conversation with Steve is a good example. Say Steve describes this single dad who’s having a hard time. I’m like, “Yeah, that does sound bad”, rather than linking back to the context and trying to establish if Uber is blameworthy. Similarly, the specific contrast with Uber’s nonexistence is not the obvious move to me; I would likely get into what Uber should do instead, which feels more doomy
If a single dad is having a hard time with Uber, it seems relevant to ask counterfactually about the same dad if Uber didn’t exist. To some degree you have to keep this in mind and not forget and let the conversation be steered away. Part of the “zooming in” operation I describe involves holding your mental camera steady :)
Hmm, can you give an example of the kind of back & forth you find yourself having?
The technique in this post demolishes a common type of bad argument, in which the arguer’s claim sounds meaningful when phrased in abstract terms, but turns out to be meaningless when viewed at a higher specificity level.
In your experience as I understand it, your discussion partner furnishes an example per your request, and the example seems like a valid illustration of their general claim, not something that dissolves into nothing when you try to repeat back what they’re trying to say?
In that case, it sounds like their claim might not be a meaningless one like Steve’s. But at least you can use the example to help your thought process about whether the general claim is right.
I think the Uber conversation with Steve is a good example. Say Steve describes this single dad who’s having a hard time. I’m like, “Yeah, that does sound bad”, rather than linking back to the context and trying to establish if Uber is blameworthy. Similarly, the specific contrast with Uber’s nonexistence is not the obvious move to me; I would likely get into what Uber should do instead, which feels more doomy
If a single dad is having a hard time with Uber, it seems relevant to ask counterfactually about the same dad if Uber didn’t exist. To some degree you have to keep this in mind and not forget and let the conversation be steered away. Part of the “zooming in” operation I describe involves holding your mental camera steady :)