What do we need the acronym ADBOC for? If we agree on denotations, our rational evaluations of the argument will be the same.
Our judgments will differ only when our judgments are affected by the emotional associations of the words or phrases, and those associations are irrelevant to the logical structure we’re supposed to be evaluating.
I think I once believed that rational argument was about forcing someone to accept a series of claims by showing that they all follow from each other, but it just doesn’t work that way in practice. When it works it’s much more like handing material to someone who is (at least somewhat) cooperating with you in trying to figure out the logical structure of a problem—pushing the right buttons of insight, so to speak.
Even if you’re right that rational discussion doesn’t take anything into account that hasn’t been spelled out explicitly, things like “ADBOC” can help us cope with the inevitable irrational elements of real discussions.
When it works it’s much more like handing material to someone who is (at least somewhat) cooperating with you in trying to figure out the logical structure of a problem—pushing the right buttons of insight, so to speak.
Precisely! The only way to really change your mind is to get into a mode where you’re actually asking the questions, and genuinely looking for answers. It’s the first skill a rationalist (or a mind hacker) has to develop, because it’s the only way to bypass motivated reasoning and rationalization.
What do we need the acronym ADBOC for? If we agree on denotations, our rational evaluations of the argument will be the same.
Our judgments will differ only when our judgments are affected by the emotional associations of the words or phrases, and those associations are irrelevant to the logical structure we’re supposed to be evaluating.
I don’t agree with this; subtexts can have claims and logical points implicit in them, and those can be relevant but mistaken.
If the argument exists only implicitly, then it’s not a rational point and is necessarily ignored in rational discussion.
I think I once believed that rational argument was about forcing someone to accept a series of claims by showing that they all follow from each other, but it just doesn’t work that way in practice. When it works it’s much more like handing material to someone who is (at least somewhat) cooperating with you in trying to figure out the logical structure of a problem—pushing the right buttons of insight, so to speak.
Even if you’re right that rational discussion doesn’t take anything into account that hasn’t been spelled out explicitly, things like “ADBOC” can help us cope with the inevitable irrational elements of real discussions.
Precisely! The only way to really change your mind is to get into a mode where you’re actually asking the questions, and genuinely looking for answers. It’s the first skill a rationalist (or a mind hacker) has to develop, because it’s the only way to bypass motivated reasoning and rationalization.