I think that you’re correct to point at a potential trap that people might slip into, of confusing the qualities of a comment with the properties of the algorithm that generated it. I think this is a thing people do, in fact, do, and it’s a projection, and it’s an often-wrong projection.
But I also think that there’s a straightforward thing that people mean by “this comment is more rational than that one,” and I think it’s a valid use of the word rational in the sense that 70+ out of 100 people would interpret it as meaning what the speaker actually intended.
Something like:
This is more careful with its inferences than that
This is more justified in its conclusions than that
This is more self-aware about the ways in which it might be skewed or off than that
This is more transparent and legible than that
This causes me to have an easier time thinking and seeing clearly than that
… and I think “thinking about how to reliably distinguish between [this] and [that] is a worthwhile activity, and a line of inquiry that’s likely to lead to promising ideas for improving the site and the community.”
I’m specifically boosting the prescriptivist point about not using the word “rational” in an inflationary way that doesn’t make literal sense. Comments can be valid, explicit on their own epistemic status, true, relevant to their intended context, not making well-known mistakes, and so on and so forth, but they can’t be rational, for the reason I gave, in the sense of “rational” as a property of cognitive algorithms.
I think this is a mistake
Incidentally, I like the distinction between error and mistake from linguistics, where an error is systematic or deliberatively endorsed behavior, while a mistake is intermittent behavior that’s not deliberatively endorsed. That would have my comment make an error, not a mistake.
Mmm, I think this is a mistake.
I think that you’re correct to point at a potential trap that people might slip into, of confusing the qualities of a comment with the properties of the algorithm that generated it. I think this is a thing people do, in fact, do, and it’s a projection, and it’s an often-wrong projection.
But I also think that there’s a straightforward thing that people mean by “this comment is more rational than that one,” and I think it’s a valid use of the word rational in the sense that 70+ out of 100 people would interpret it as meaning what the speaker actually intended.
Something like:
This is more careful with its inferences than that
This is more justified in its conclusions than that
This is more self-aware about the ways in which it might be skewed or off than that
This is more transparent and legible than that
This causes me to have an easier time thinking and seeing clearly than that
… and I think “thinking about how to reliably distinguish between [this] and [that] is a worthwhile activity, and a line of inquiry that’s likely to lead to promising ideas for improving the site and the community.”
I’m specifically boosting the prescriptivist point about not using the word “rational” in an inflationary way that doesn’t make literal sense. Comments can be valid, explicit on their own epistemic status, true, relevant to their intended context, not making well-known mistakes, and so on and so forth, but they can’t be rational, for the reason I gave, in the sense of “rational” as a property of cognitive algorithms.
Incidentally, I like the distinction between error and mistake from linguistics, where an error is systematic or deliberatively endorsed behavior, while a mistake is intermittent behavior that’s not deliberatively endorsed. That would have my comment make an error, not a mistake.
I like it.