Shouldn’t we, of all people, be most respectful of Godwin’s Law, knowing as we do the dangers of affective analogy in human argument? I know you’re trying to shock people out of their Cached Deep Thoughts, but that doesn’t justify Dark Side Epistemology.
Generalized Godwin’s Law: You should not score points simply by drawing analogies between the topic under consideration and a topic that everyone present feels morally obligated to applaud/boo when mentioned.
ETA: I understand that the point is a reductio ad absurdam of Frank’s argument, but placing it in this context has a side effect of affective analogy which we ought to strongly avoid.
Shouldn’t we, of all people, be most respectful of Godwin’s Law, knowing as we do the dangers of affective analogy in human argument? I know you’re trying to shock people out of their Cached Deep Thoughts, but that doesn’t justify Dark Side Epistemology.
Generalized Godwin’s Law: You should not score points simply by drawing analogies between the topic under consideration and a topic that everyone present feels morally obligated to applaud/boo when mentioned.
ETA: I understand that the point is a reductio ad absurdam of Frank’s argument, but placing it in this context has a side effect of affective analogy which we ought to strongly avoid.
Can we avoid buzzwords, please, and try to discuss actual ideas?
I think the jargon here is actually useful compression.