This problem, if it happens frequently here, seems likely symptomatic of a larger tendency: folks here like accumulating catchy rationalist buzzwords, and dismissing the arguments of others by simply linking to the relevant OB/LW article.
This seems to apply to biases and other sorts of errors (or even just common objections!) as much as fallacies.
dismissing the arguments of others by simply linking to the relevant OB/LW article
Not just when dismissing arguments. Discussions here—even top-level posts—often remind me of my sister’s complaint about Louis Diat’s Basic French Cooking—every recipe refers to other recipes, so you end up having to slaughter a calf in order to make vichysoisse.
It makes it bloody hard for us newbies who have read less than a few dozen posts on LW and OB—and internalized even fewer.
I realize it’s difficult with many concepts being discussed here, but when possible try to define concepts briefly and clearly when writing about them?
And yes: instead of just naming a fallacy, clearly demonstrate how it is instantiated in the material being replied to. (In itself, an excellent teaching moment.)
This problem, if it happens frequently here, seems likely symptomatic of a larger tendency: folks here like accumulating catchy rationalist buzzwords, and dismissing the arguments of others by simply linking to the relevant OB/LW article.
This seems to apply to biases and other sorts of errors (or even just common objections!) as much as fallacies.
ETA: link—this is not a fallacy.
Not just when dismissing arguments. Discussions here—even top-level posts—often remind me of my sister’s complaint about Louis Diat’s Basic French Cooking—every recipe refers to other recipes, so you end up having to slaughter a calf in order to make vichysoisse.
It makes it bloody hard for us newbies who have read less than a few dozen posts on LW and OB—and internalized even fewer.
I realize it’s difficult with many concepts being discussed here, but when possible try to define concepts briefly and clearly when writing about them?
And yes: instead of just naming a fallacy, clearly demonstrate how it is instantiated in the material being replied to. (In itself, an excellent teaching moment.)