Is my elaboration of the “burdensome detail” argument faulty?
“Burdensome detail” is wholly about priors, and you started the elaboration with “I don’t feel like arguing about priors”, and going on about updating on evidence. Thus, I don’t see how you made any elaboration of burdensome detail argument, you’ve described a different argument instead.
I don’t want to argue about the priors for 1-3 specifically. Such arguments generally devolve into unproductive bickering about the assignment of the burden of proof. However, priors for arguments about specific historical events, such as the location of the podium from which the speeches were delivered at Gettysburg, are known to be of ordinarily-small levels, and most evidence (e.g. written accounts) are of known weak strength in particular predictable ways*. In fact, I mentioned Gettysburg specifically because the best-guess location changed relatively recently due to new analysis of the written evidence and terrain. In pure terms of my own curiosity, therefore, I anticipate more interesting discussion on 4-6 than 1-3, as nick012000′s evidence for the latter I expect to be wrong in familiar ways.
* cf. Imaginary Positions—rounding to the nearest cliché is a standard failure mode.
Such arguments generally devolve into unproductive bickering about the assignment of the burden of proof.
Russel’s teapot seems quite settled, and most religions go the same way for similar reasons. This argument is quite strong. Anyway, this is what I referred to; I don’t want to discuss evidence about religion.
Is my elaboration of the “burdensome detail” argument faulty? How would you advise I revise it?
“Burdensome detail” is wholly about priors, and you started the elaboration with “I don’t feel like arguing about priors”, and going on about updating on evidence. Thus, I don’t see how you made any elaboration of burdensome detail argument, you’ve described a different argument instead.
I think I might see what you mean.
I don’t want to argue about the priors for 1-3 specifically. Such arguments generally devolve into unproductive bickering about the assignment of the burden of proof. However, priors for arguments about specific historical events, such as the location of the podium from which the speeches were delivered at Gettysburg, are known to be of ordinarily-small levels, and most evidence (e.g. written accounts) are of known weak strength in particular predictable ways*. In fact, I mentioned Gettysburg specifically because the best-guess location changed relatively recently due to new analysis of the written evidence and terrain. In pure terms of my own curiosity, therefore, I anticipate more interesting discussion on 4-6 than 1-3, as nick012000′s evidence for the latter I expect to be wrong in familiar ways.
* cf. Imaginary Positions—rounding to the nearest cliché is a standard failure mode.
Russel’s teapot seems quite settled, and most religions go the same way for similar reasons. This argument is quite strong. Anyway, this is what I referred to; I don’t want to discuss evidence about religion.
I do wish to discuss evidence about religion—at least, I do today. I hope nick will oblige.