It then goes on to make a bunch of (wrong, laughably overconfident) object-level arguments about very obviously non-settled topics in science and philosophy.
But that’s the real problem, no? If it had opened with a “bunch of inflammatory remarks” and then solidly backed them up you’d be fine with it, right?
No, it’s about whether such backup is needed in the first place.
If you’re making claims which are likely to be widely contested at the object level, it’s better to leave the inflammatory remarks to the end or not make them at all. Conversely, if you’re not claiming to make original or controversial object-level claims of your own, it’s fine to dive straight into the negative character assessments, though preferably supported with evidence and citations rather than personal attacks and charged rhetoric.
Note that you can often judge how much object-level support is required without knowing whether your object-level arguments are solid or even how your audience will react them—based on the comments section of their respective posts, both Eliezer and Omnizoid made this judgement correctly.
Or, to break it down a different way, consider the following possible claims an author can make, where X is an object-level statement:
X is fasle.
Among some particular group (e.g. academic philosophers), it is well-known and uncontroversial that X is false.
If you’re going to write a post arguing that the second claim is true, and use that as a justification to attack someone who believes X, you better be very careful not get sidetracked arguing about X, even if you’re correct that X is false! (Because if an academic philosopher happens to wander into your object-level argument on the wrong side, that falsifies your second claim, independent of the truth value of X.)
But that’s the real problem, no? If it had opened with a “bunch of inflammatory remarks” and then solidly backed them up you’d be fine with it, right?
No, it’s about whether such backup is needed in the first place.
If you’re making claims which are likely to be widely contested at the object level, it’s better to leave the inflammatory remarks to the end or not make them at all. Conversely, if you’re not claiming to make original or controversial object-level claims of your own, it’s fine to dive straight into the negative character assessments, though preferably supported with evidence and citations rather than personal attacks and charged rhetoric.
Note that you can often judge how much object-level support is required without knowing whether your object-level arguments are solid or even how your audience will react them—based on the comments section of their respective posts, both Eliezer and Omnizoid made this judgement correctly.
Or, to break it down a different way, consider the following possible claims an author can make, where X is an object-level statement:
X is fasle.
Among some particular group (e.g. academic philosophers), it is well-known and uncontroversial that X is false.
If you’re going to write a post arguing that the second claim is true, and use that as a justification to attack someone who believes X, you better be very careful not get sidetracked arguing about X, even if you’re correct that X is false! (Because if an academic philosopher happens to wander into your object-level argument on the wrong side, that falsifies your second claim, independent of the truth value of X.)