Your method of trying to determine whether something is true or not relies overly much on feedback from strangers. Your comment demands large amounts of intellectual labor from others (‘disprove why all easier modes are incorrect’), despite the preamble of the post, while seeming unwilling to put much work in yourself.
Yes, when strong assertions are made, a lot of intellectual labor is expected if evidence is lacking or missing. Plus, I wrote it in mind as being the first comment so it raises a few more points than I think is practical for the 100th comment. The preamble cannot justify points that are justified nowhere else, Or else it would be a simple appeal to authority.
In the vast majority of cases people who understand what they don’t understand hedge their assertions, so since there was a lack of equally strong evidence, or hedging, to support the corresponding claims I was intrigued if they did exist and Elizer simply didn’t link it, which could be for a variety of reasons. That is another factor in why I left it open ended.
It does seem I was correct for some of the points that the strongest evidence is less substantial than what the claims imply.
The other way I could see a reasonable person view it, is if I had read everything credible to do with the topic I wouldn’t have phrased it that way.
Though again that seems a bit far fetched since I highly doubt anyone has read through the preexisting literature completely across the many dozens of topics mentioned here and still remembers every point.
In any case it would have been strange to put a detailed and elaborate critique of a single point in the very first comment where common courtesy is to leave it more open ended for engagement and to allow others to chime in.
Which is why lc’s response seems so bizarre since they don’t even address any of the obvious rebuttals of my post and instead opens with a non-sequiter.
Your method of trying to determine whether something is true or not relies overly much on feedback from strangers. Your comment demands large amounts of intellectual labor from others (‘disprove why all easier modes are incorrect’), despite the preamble of the post, while seeming unwilling to put much work in yourself.
Yes, when strong assertions are made, a lot of intellectual labor is expected if evidence is lacking or missing. Plus, I wrote it in mind as being the first comment so it raises a few more points than I think is practical for the 100th comment. The preamble cannot justify points that are justified nowhere else, Or else it would be a simple appeal to authority.
In the vast majority of cases people who understand what they don’t understand hedge their assertions, so since there was a lack of equally strong evidence, or hedging, to support the corresponding claims I was intrigued if they did exist and Elizer simply didn’t link it, which could be for a variety of reasons. That is another factor in why I left it open ended.
It does seem I was correct for some of the points that the strongest evidence is less substantial than what the claims imply.
The other way I could see a reasonable person view it, is if I had read everything credible to do with the topic I wouldn’t have phrased it that way.
Though again that seems a bit far fetched since I highly doubt anyone has read through the preexisting literature completely across the many dozens of topics mentioned here and still remembers every point.
In any case it would have been strange to put a detailed and elaborate critique of a single point in the very first comment where common courtesy is to leave it more open ended for engagement and to allow others to chime in.
Which is why lc’s response seems so bizarre since they don’t even address any of the obvious rebuttals of my post and instead opens with a non-sequiter.