Unfortunately it is usually rude not to allow people their logical rudeness and from what I can see it is expected that talent with this footwork, as you describe it, will be deferred to with respect.
For my part I tend to cut off engagement with those who persist with such logical rudeness but that option would be less appealing if the subject was something that really mattered to me. For example my life’s mission and the very future of the universe. Sometimes bullshit just needs to be called, even if it breaks the flow and the illusion of good faith.
Unfortunately it is usually rude not to allow people their logical rudeness and from what I can see it is expected that talent with this footwork, as you describe it, will be deferred to with respect.
This is exactly what Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are trying to promote:
That people’s logical rudeness should not be excused because it is based upon something Sacred. It is these Sacred Beliefs that perpetuate the Logical Rudeness that Eliezer has defined in his post, and these beliefs eventually need to be forcefully examined and probably opposed!
I like your reply because to me it comically resembles the Sin of underconfidence. You are being cautious about what you say about Sacred Beliefs, so you say they eventually need to be forcefully examined and probably opposed.
Well I think we need to just call a spade a spade. Religious beliefs are obviously whacky, and they should be opposed now. There is no way all of society is going to have a civilized debate about religion, so we just need to start forcefully objecting to sacred cows and any protection that people’s unfounded beliefs have in “polite conversation”.
I said eventually, because not every belief is going to come up at once, and I said probably because not every belief in the set of religious beliefs is toxic or wrong.
The belief may be true in some sense, but its underlying reasoning will need to be adjusted.
You are correct though that the basis of most (almost all) religious belief is outright crazy and needs to be opposed as soon as it is encountered.
As an example of a belief I am describing:
Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar’s and unto God those things which are God’s
The only thing wrong with this belief is that the set of things in the second category is empty, and the set of things in the first category needs to be adjusted based upon that second category being the empty set.
Thus, this is an accurate belief. Vacuous for the most part, but accurate. It should be amended to just
Give people what they are due.
(Edit: What Eliezer is describing in his post on the Sin of Underconfidence is a phenomenon called the Dunning-Krueger Effect)
Unfortunately it is usually rude not to allow people their logical rudeness and from what I can see it is expected that talent with this footwork, as you describe it, will be deferred to with respect.
For my part I tend to cut off engagement with those who persist with such logical rudeness but that option would be less appealing if the subject was something that really mattered to me. For example my life’s mission and the very future of the universe. Sometimes bullshit just needs to be called, even if it breaks the flow and the illusion of good faith.
This is exactly what Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are trying to promote:
That people’s logical rudeness should not be excused because it is based upon something Sacred. It is these Sacred Beliefs that perpetuate the Logical Rudeness that Eliezer has defined in his post, and these beliefs eventually need to be forcefully examined and probably opposed!
Absolutely, and I’m concurring.
I like your reply because to me it comically resembles the Sin of underconfidence. You are being cautious about what you say about Sacred Beliefs, so you say they eventually need to be forcefully examined and probably opposed.
Well I think we need to just call a spade a spade. Religious beliefs are obviously whacky, and they should be opposed now. There is no way all of society is going to have a civilized debate about religion, so we just need to start forcefully objecting to sacred cows and any protection that people’s unfounded beliefs have in “polite conversation”.
I said eventually, because not every belief is going to come up at once, and I said probably because not every belief in the set of religious beliefs is toxic or wrong.
The belief may be true in some sense, but its underlying reasoning will need to be adjusted.
You are correct though that the basis of most (almost all) religious belief is outright crazy and needs to be opposed as soon as it is encountered.
As an example of a belief I am describing:
The only thing wrong with this belief is that the set of things in the second category is empty, and the set of things in the first category needs to be adjusted based upon that second category being the empty set.
Thus, this is an accurate belief. Vacuous for the most part, but accurate. It should be amended to just
(Edit: What Eliezer is describing in his post on the Sin of Underconfidence is a phenomenon called the Dunning-Krueger Effect)
Is it really perceived as calling bullshit if you just say, “Wait, before moving on to your second point, let’s finish up debating this first point”?
If only that worked reliably!
Sometimes it’s like shouting at the tides; a determined opponent will just make a more forceful push for derailment next time.