You understand the hypocrisy, then. We rely on this very general & valid strategy in all sorts of real-life real-money situations, but when it comes to discussions of complex important topics? All of sudden it is 100% verboten.
This, it seems to me, is exactly what a underused rationalist cheat would look like.
This, it seems to me, is exactly what a underused rationalist cheat would look like.
I agree that it seems to match my impression of what the form should be. However, it’s not just an arbitrary rule to not use ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem is a formal fallacy—non-fallacious ad hominems are really not all that unheard-of in academia.
Is this not contradictory?
You understand the hypocrisy, then. We rely on this very general & valid strategy in all sorts of real-life real-money situations, but when it comes to discussions of complex important topics? All of sudden it is 100% verboten.
This, it seems to me, is exactly what a underused rationalist cheat would look like.
Can you give an example of something that this change would sanction?
I agree that it seems to match my impression of what the form should be. However, it’s not just an arbitrary rule to not use ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem is a formal fallacy—non-fallacious ad hominems are really not all that unheard-of in academia.