I understand the idea of the “bottom line” post a little distinctly. In my understanding it doesn’t address the process of arguing (i.e. constructing verbal expressions capable of persuading others).
I have a general objection against this interpretation—it throws away the literal meaning of the EY’s post.
But there is also a pragmatic difference, about where to direct the focus of attention when one tries to de-bias one’s reasoning. With the three steps as I stated them, I know that I cannot really fix the step 1, beyond trying to catch myself before I commit, as lincolnquirk suggested. Step 2 is comparatively harmless, so it’s the step 3 where I must put the real defense.
But most arguments are about complex hypotheses whose justification could be (and usually is) reduced to a chain of elementary inductive steps. For such hypotheses it is certainly feasible (psychologically or otherwise) to arrive at them gradually—guessing and rationalising the irreducible bits which can be easily checked, but not the hypothesis as a whole.
Could you mention specific examples of such complex hypotheses? I mean, where it would make sense to know the conclusion in advance, and yet the conclusion would not be reachable in a single intuitive leap. It seems contradictory.
I have a general objection against this interpretation—it throws away the literal meaning of the EY’s post.
The literal meaning of the post, if any, is: no matter of carefully crafted post-hoc justification is going to make your conclusion correct. I don’t think your interpretation is closer to it than mine.
Could you mention specific examples of such complex hypotheses? I mean, where it would make sense to know the conclusion in advance, and yet the conclusion would not be reachable in a single intuitive leap.
I am not sure what you mean by “making sense to know the conclusion in advance” and “reachable in a single intuitive leap”. I am thinking of questions whose valid justification is not irreducible—either it is a chain of reasoning or it consists of independent pieces of evidence—just as:
Does God exist? Does global warming happen? Why did the non-avian dinosaurs become extinct? Is the millionth decimal digit of pi 8? Who is the best candidate for the upcoming presidential elections in Nicaragua?
Most questions I can think of now are like that, so there is probably some misunderstanding.
I have a general objection against this interpretation—it throws away the literal meaning of the EY’s post.
But there is also a pragmatic difference, about where to direct the focus of attention when one tries to de-bias one’s reasoning. With the three steps as I stated them, I know that I cannot really fix the step 1, beyond trying to catch myself before I commit, as lincolnquirk suggested. Step 2 is comparatively harmless, so it’s the step 3 where I must put the real defense.
Could you mention specific examples of such complex hypotheses? I mean, where it would make sense to know the conclusion in advance, and yet the conclusion would not be reachable in a single intuitive leap. It seems contradictory.
The literal meaning of the post, if any, is: no matter of carefully crafted post-hoc justification is going to make your conclusion correct. I don’t think your interpretation is closer to it than mine.
I am not sure what you mean by “making sense to know the conclusion in advance” and “reachable in a single intuitive leap”. I am thinking of questions whose valid justification is not irreducible—either it is a chain of reasoning or it consists of independent pieces of evidence—just as:
Does God exist? Does global warming happen? Why did the non-avian dinosaurs become extinct? Is the millionth decimal digit of pi 8? Who is the best candidate for the upcoming presidential elections in Nicaragua?
Most questions I can think of now are like that, so there is probably some misunderstanding.