A recommendation: be careful not to use “dark art argument” as a fully general counter-argument. If you see a logical flaw, state it; if you detect an attempt to manipulate, dissect it. (You did do this, but it’s still a useful recommendation.) Not only is the term “dark arts” jargon and prejudicial, but the Dark Arts are such a grab-bag of tricks and traps that merely labeling some argument as “dark arts” barely adds any information at all.
Yes, I got the same impression. Annoyance’s advice is vague, useless, condescending, trying to sound like it has something profound to say without being specific, sonorous-sounding, promising help without offering any. It is not, however, particularly Dark Side Epistemology.
I was thinking of your Dark Side Epistemology and Yvain’s Dark Arts as two more-or-less separate things, the key difference stemming from the fact that Dark Arts are perpetrated on others and Dark Side Epistemology is perpetrated on one’s self.
You’re right that the phrase ‘dark side’ (and all other phrases of the form ‘dark X’) should probably be avoided. That bit was in reference to Defense Against The Dark Arts, which Annoyance’s post reminded me of.
Remarkable. How exactly did you come to be a fan of Zen Buddhism? Since most of the comments you object to are direct references to it, and the remainder are generally references to other philosophical traditions, many of which are well-known in popular culture and are quite easy to find and understand with a few quick web searchers, I can’t quite grasp why you can’t perceive the value you claim to find in those things in my references to them.
Perhaps your desire to shoot the messenger overwhelms your ability to appreciate the message. Or perhaps you don’t actually have any appreciation for the traditions you make reference to. Or both, of course.
A recommendation: be careful not to use “dark art argument” as a fully general counter-argument. If you see a logical flaw, state it; if you detect an attempt to manipulate, dissect it. (You did do this, but it’s still a useful recommendation.) Not only is the term “dark arts” jargon and prejudicial, but the Dark Arts are such a grab-bag of tricks and traps that merely labeling some argument as “dark arts” barely adds any information at all.
Yes, I got the same impression. Annoyance’s advice is vague, useless, condescending, trying to sound like it has something profound to say without being specific, sonorous-sounding, promising help without offering any. It is not, however, particularly Dark Side Epistemology.
I was thinking of your Dark Side Epistemology and Yvain’s Dark Arts as two more-or-less separate things, the key difference stemming from the fact that Dark Arts are perpetrated on others and Dark Side Epistemology is perpetrated on one’s self.
You’re right that the phrase ‘dark side’ (and all other phrases of the form ‘dark X’) should probably be avoided. That bit was in reference to Defense Against The Dark Arts, which Annoyance’s post reminded me of.
Remarkable. How exactly did you come to be a fan of Zen Buddhism? Since most of the comments you object to are direct references to it, and the remainder are generally references to other philosophical traditions, many of which are well-known in popular culture and are quite easy to find and understand with a few quick web searchers, I can’t quite grasp why you can’t perceive the value you claim to find in those things in my references to them.
Perhaps your desire to shoot the messenger overwhelms your ability to appreciate the message. Or perhaps you don’t actually have any appreciation for the traditions you make reference to. Or both, of course.