Ad hominems. We are so well schooled in ‘traditional’ deductive rationality that we instinctively shy away from using this strategy, even though it’s quite powerful and often we’re using it in practice anyway.
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.
Ad hominems. We are so well schooled in ‘traditional’ deductive rationality that we instinctively shy away from using this strategy, even though it’s quite powerful and often we’re using it in practice anyway.
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.
Well...
I don’t think that post disagrees with me.