In the case of Karate, one can see that it is at least possible to become an expert. What does being a black belt at debate even mean? It probably doesn’t mean being able to conclude any argument, since it is not clear that achieving resolution ofcontentious issues is possible in general.
Issues that are sufficiently deep, or which cut across cultural boundaries run into a problem where, not only do parties disagree about the object level issue, they also disagree about underlying questions of what constitutes truth, proof, evidence, etc. “Satan created the fossils to mislead people” is an example of one side rejecting the other sides evidence as even being evidence . Its a silly example, but there are much more robust ones. Can’t you just agree on an epistemology, and then resolve the object level issue? No, because it takes an epistemology to come to conclusions about epistemology. Two parties with epistemological differences at the object level will also have them at the meta level.
Once this problem, sometimes called “the epistemological circle” or “the Munchausen Trilemma”, is understood, it will be seen that the ability to agree or settle issues is the exception, not the norm
I have a bit of a dilemma. What do you say to someone who says things like “I believe in ghosts because I see and have conversations with them”? (Not a hypothetical example!)
Did he solve politics? Certainly some people are better debaters than others, but that doesn’t mean that the absolute standard of being able to resolve fundamental disputes is ever reached.
Whether solving politics is reasonable depends on where you are coming from. There’s a common assumption round here that Aumann’s agreement applies to real life, that people should be able to reach agreement and solve problems, and if they can’t, that’s an anomaly that needs explanation. The OP is suggesting that the explanation for arch-rationalists such as Hanson and Yudkowsky being unable to agree is lack of skill,whereas I am suggesting that Aumanns theorem doesn’t apply to real life, so lack of skill is not the only problem.
In the case of Karate, one can see that it is at least possible to become an expert. What does being a black belt at debate even mean? It probably doesn’t mean being able to conclude any argument, since it is not clear that achieving resolution ofcontentious issues is possible in general.
Issues that are sufficiently deep, or which cut across cultural boundaries run into a problem where, not only do parties disagree about the object level issue, they also disagree about underlying questions of what constitutes truth, proof, evidence, etc. “Satan created the fossils to mislead people” is an example of one side rejecting the other sides evidence as even being evidence . Its a silly example, but there are much more robust ones. Can’t you just agree on an epistemology, and then resolve the object level issue? No, because it takes an epistemology to come to conclusions about epistemology. Two parties with epistemological differences at the object level will also have them at the meta level.
Once this problem, sometimes called “the epistemological circle” or “the Munchausen Trilemma”, is understood, it will be seen that the ability to agree or settle issues is the exception, not the norm
I have a bit of a dilemma. What do you say to someone who says things like “I believe in ghosts because I see and have conversations with them”? (Not a hypothetical example!)
“Well, I’ve never seen one”.
There is still better and worse epistemology. I have been arguing that cautious epistemology is better than confident epistemology.
Even if there is a set of claims that are very silly, it doesn’t follow that Aumann-style agreement is possible.
Can you introduce me?
LKY apparently regularly destroyed debate opponents in 3 different languages in long marathon sessions.
Did he solve politics? Certainly some people are better debaters than others, but that doesn’t mean that the absolute standard of being able to resolve fundamental disputes is ever reached.
1. that’s not a reasonable standard for the thing?
2. he actually came closer than almost anyone else?
Whether solving politics is reasonable depends on where you are coming from. There’s a common assumption round here that Aumann’s agreement applies to real life, that people should be able to reach agreement and solve problems, and if they can’t, that’s an anomaly that needs explanation. The OP is suggesting that the explanation for arch-rationalists such as Hanson and Yudkowsky being unable to agree is lack of skill,whereas I am suggesting that Aumanns theorem doesn’t apply to real life, so lack of skill is not the only problem.