I don’t see that there’s a better way to divine the truth in historical, economic, and political matters. Bayes’s Theorem isn’t much use when you have no decent numbers to put into it—regardless of the fact that it is true. How would you conduct a worthwhile Bayesian analysis of the proposition that neocameralism is a superior form of government to democracy? Have I any reason to believe that such an analysis would be better than Moldbug’s deductive reasoning? Bear in mind also that statistics are not necessarily trustworthy or fully informative.
I find that a sharp mind—Moldbug’s is extremely sharp indeed—is capable of achieving a high signal-to-noise ratio using this style of reasoning where others might not.
After all, a direct confrontation of the reasoning style you disparage and an approach I expect you might consider more “evidence-based” is found in macroeconomics—Austrians as literary economists, Keynesians as quantitative economists. I’m sure you’ll agree that the hegemonic Keynesians have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
Arguing from principles and representative quotations is a good way to give evidence for claims about the way people say things
I can only interpret this as the idea that all speech and writing provides evidence only about the speaker or author himself. I disagree in the strongest terms!
I don’t see that there’s a better way to divine the truth in historical, economic, and political matters.
I didn’t ask for a full statistical analysis. Although it would certainly be nice, it seems like a lot of work—deductive reasoning is but a tiny subset of probabilistic reasoning. However, I suppose one could use random sampling methods to make sure that you didn’t go far wrong. New field name: asymptotically correct history.
Anyhow, what I said was lacking was evidence in general—arguments that are harder to make when false than when true. This sort of thing often does mean statistics, but not because statistics are magical—because when you use statistics it’s easy to see when you leave stuff out.
I find that a sharp mind—Moldbug’s is extremely sharp indeed—is capable of achieving a high signal-to-noise ratio using this style of reasoning where others might not.
Correct reasoning is not a magical power, it’s a process that anyone can follow. A->B to ~B->~A, non-replicable reasoning is highly suspicious.
After all, a direct confrontation of the reasoning style you disparage and an approach I expect you might consider more “evidence-based” is found in macroeconomics
If we drag economics into this we’ll be here all day :P Anyhow, I’d rather pick an example with representation from the “literary” side, and maybe a control group. Unfortunately, no clean examples come to mind.
Arguing from principles and representative quotations is a good way to give evidence for claims about the way people say things
I can only interpret this as the idea that all speech and writing provides evidence only about the speaker or author himself. I disagree in the strongest terms!
I don’t see that there’s a better way to divine the truth in historical, economic, and political matters. Bayes’s Theorem isn’t much use when you have no decent numbers to put into it—regardless of the fact that it is true. How would you conduct a worthwhile Bayesian analysis of the proposition that neocameralism is a superior form of government to democracy? Have I any reason to believe that such an analysis would be better than Moldbug’s deductive reasoning? Bear in mind also that statistics are not necessarily trustworthy or fully informative.
I find that a sharp mind—Moldbug’s is extremely sharp indeed—is capable of achieving a high signal-to-noise ratio using this style of reasoning where others might not.
After all, a direct confrontation of the reasoning style you disparage and an approach I expect you might consider more “evidence-based” is found in macroeconomics—Austrians as literary economists, Keynesians as quantitative economists. I’m sure you’ll agree that the hegemonic Keynesians have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
I can only interpret this as the idea that all speech and writing provides evidence only about the speaker or author himself. I disagree in the strongest terms!
I didn’t ask for a full statistical analysis. Although it would certainly be nice, it seems like a lot of work—deductive reasoning is but a tiny subset of probabilistic reasoning. However, I suppose one could use random sampling methods to make sure that you didn’t go far wrong. New field name: asymptotically correct history.
Anyhow, what I said was lacking was evidence in general—arguments that are harder to make when false than when true. This sort of thing often does mean statistics, but not because statistics are magical—because when you use statistics it’s easy to see when you leave stuff out.
Correct reasoning is not a magical power, it’s a process that anyone can follow. A->B to ~B->~A, non-replicable reasoning is highly suspicious.
If we drag economics into this we’ll be here all day :P Anyhow, I’d rather pick an example with representation from the “literary” side, and maybe a control group. Unfortunately, no clean examples come to mind.
Please interpret it literally.