I’m very happy with most of these choices. I’m confused about “locally valid” and “locally invalid” being removed, though. It would feel weird to me to use “weak argument” and “strong argument” in their stead, since weak and strong connote doing different amounts of work, while valid and invalid denote logical applicability.
For one, it’s very rare to need to point out that an argument is “locally valid”, so the reaction is one of the least used reacts we have. For two, I think “locally invalid” is actually often not very helpful in a good discussion? Most arguments people make aren’t deductively sound, they’re probabilistic, and those who disagree are disagreeing with either the strength of evidence, or (rarer) the direction that evidence points. It’s not that you made a mistake of predicate logic, it’s that I think your evidence doesn’t really support your conclusion, and that’s a more substantive disagreement. It seems to me that the relevant thing is often that the argument seems weak to the reader, rather than the author’s arguments not making sense.
I am still sad about losing them as part of culture setting, but overall I think they were either not worth the space or not used well, and we still have plenty of good LessWrong culture setting in the reacts palette.
“Locally invalid” was a specific react for highlighting the part of a comment that makes a self-contained mistake, different from “Disagree”. A faulty step is not centrally a “weak argument”, as it’s sometimes not any kind of argument. And discussion often gestures at a claim without providing any sort of evidence or giving any argument, the evidence or the argument is for the recipients to reconstruct for themselves.
I don’t have examples easily to hand, but my impression (sadly) was that it was too often misused, for when someone disagreed with an argument, to mark it as locally invalid rather than simply disagreeing.
Perhaps if people learn to use “weak argument” instead in those situations, I might add it back in later, or perhaps I can find a secret third react which better gets them what they are looking for (e.g. “I don’t think that this follows” or “I reject this step of the argument”) that they would correctly use even if “locally invalid” is added back in.
I’m very happy with most of these choices. I’m confused about “locally valid” and “locally invalid” being removed, though. It would feel weird to me to use “weak argument” and “strong argument” in their stead, since weak and strong connote doing different amounts of work, while valid and invalid denote logical applicability.
For one, it’s very rare to need to point out that an argument is “locally valid”, so the reaction is one of the least used reacts we have. For two, I think “locally invalid” is actually often not very helpful in a good discussion? Most arguments people make aren’t deductively sound, they’re probabilistic, and those who disagree are disagreeing with either the strength of evidence, or (rarer) the direction that evidence points. It’s not that you made a mistake of predicate logic, it’s that I think your evidence doesn’t really support your conclusion, and that’s a more substantive disagreement. It seems to me that the relevant thing is often that the argument seems weak to the reader, rather than the author’s arguments not making sense.
I am still sad about losing them as part of culture setting, but overall I think they were either not worth the space or not used well, and we still have plenty of good LessWrong culture setting in the reacts palette.
“Locally invalid” was a specific react for highlighting the part of a comment that makes a self-contained mistake, different from “Disagree”. A faulty step is not centrally a “weak argument”, as it’s sometimes not any kind of argument. And discussion often gestures at a claim without providing any sort of evidence or giving any argument, the evidence or the argument is for the recipients to reconstruct for themselves.
I don’t have examples easily to hand, but my impression (sadly) was that it was too often misused, for when someone disagreed with an argument, to mark it as locally invalid rather than simply disagreeing.
Perhaps if people learn to use “weak argument” instead in those situations, I might add it back in later, or perhaps I can find a secret third react which better gets them what they are looking for (e.g. “I don’t think that this follows” or “I reject this step of the argument”) that they would correctly use even if “locally invalid” is added back in.