The fallacy I was referring to is basic ad hominem—“You haven’t read X, therefore I can safely ignore your argument”. It says nothing about the validity of the argument, and everything about an arbitrary set of demands you’ve made.
I’m all for demanding a high standard of discussion, and of asking for people to argue rationally. But I don’t care about how someone goes about doing so—a good argument from someone who hasn’t read the sequences is still better than a bad argument from someone who has. You’re advocating a highly restrictive filter, and it’s one that I suspect will not be nearly as effective as you want it to be(other than at creating an echo chamber, of course).
We’re more or less talking past each other at this point. I haven’t advocated for a highly restrictive filter, nor have I made any arbitrary demands on my interlocutors—rather, very specific ones. Very well.
The fallacy I was referring to is basic ad hominem—“You haven’t read X, therefore I can safely ignore your argument”.
I can’t say for certain that that situation doesn’t occur, but I haven’t seen it in recent memory. The situation I’ve seen more frequently runs like this:
A: “Here’s an argument showing why this post is wrong.”
B: “EY covers this objection here in this [linked sequence].”
A: “Oh, I haven’t read the sequences.”
At this point, I would say B is justified in ignoring A’s argument, and doing so doesn’t constitute a logical fallacy.
There’s ways to have a passing familiarity with rational debate that don’t involve reading a million words of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s writings.
That has nothing to do with whether or not something you believe to be a logical fallacy is or is not.
The fallacy I was referring to is basic ad hominem—“You haven’t read X, therefore I can safely ignore your argument”. It says nothing about the validity of the argument, and everything about an arbitrary set of demands you’ve made.
I’m all for demanding a high standard of discussion, and of asking for people to argue rationally. But I don’t care about how someone goes about doing so—a good argument from someone who hasn’t read the sequences is still better than a bad argument from someone who has. You’re advocating a highly restrictive filter, and it’s one that I suspect will not be nearly as effective as you want it to be(other than at creating an echo chamber, of course).
We’re more or less talking past each other at this point. I haven’t advocated for a highly restrictive filter, nor have I made any arbitrary demands on my interlocutors—rather, very specific ones. Very well.
I can’t say for certain that that situation doesn’t occur, but I haven’t seen it in recent memory. The situation I’ve seen more frequently runs like this:
A: “Here’s an argument showing why this post is wrong.”
B: “EY covers this objection here in this [linked sequence].”
A: “Oh, I haven’t read the sequences.”
At this point, I would say B is justified in ignoring A’s argument, and doing so doesn’t constitute a logical fallacy.