1) There are different definitions of a fallacy. What I am talking of here are clear cases of argumentative cheating.
2) I do think that factchecking does help, yes. Politicians would have lied much more if they hadn’t known that they could be caught out with those lies.
Media do now and then reveal that politicians have lied on important topics (Watergate, Clinton on Lewinsky, etc). This a) had negative political consequences for the lying politicians and b) arguably made all other politicians less likely to lie (since these incidents taught them which consequences that could have), though this latter point is harder to prove.
So, your justification for the claim that factchecking improves politics is based on 2 anecdotes: a scandal from 40 years ago; and another scandal from 20 years ago which to many epitomizes the irrational & tribal nature of politics in which partisan hacks look for any excuse to attack an enemy no matter how trivial or unrelated to the job of governing the country it is?
gwern might be a smart guy, but he is below average at charitably interpreting opposing arguments, at least this is my impression based on my interaction with him here and on IRC. It’s not an uncommon failing, Eliezer comes across as uncharitable, as well, especially when dealing with those perceived as lower status (he was very very charitable to Karnofsky).
Of course, the impression of uncharitabilty (uncharitableness? is it even a word?) is often given off when the person is a few levels above you and goes through the most charitable interpretations of your argument in their head quickly, realizes that they are all wrong, as well, and rejects the argument without explicitly discussing why the charitable versions are no better than the uncharitable ones. I don’t know how to tell the difference.
Obviously not. Please apply the principle of charity. These are some salient examples. Of course there are others.
Of course there are others, but I am not interested in arguing by anecdote especially when the anecdotes don’t seem to support your thesis. (Seriously, of all the scandals you had to pick the Lewinsky scandal?) What exactly am I supposed to be applying charity to here? Do you have any systematic, concrete, empirical data that supports your claim that factchecking improves politics?
1) There are different definitions of a fallacy. What I am talking of here are clear cases of argumentative cheating. 2) I do think that factchecking does help, yes. Politicians would have lied much more if they hadn’t known that they could be caught out with those lies.
Most people would consider ad hominems cheating if it were pointed out to them.
Based on...?
Media do now and then reveal that politicians have lied on important topics (Watergate, Clinton on Lewinsky, etc). This a) had negative political consequences for the lying politicians and b) arguably made all other politicians less likely to lie (since these incidents taught them which consequences that could have), though this latter point is harder to prove.
See also my comment above.
So, your justification for the claim that factchecking improves politics is based on 2 anecdotes: a scandal from 40 years ago; and another scandal from 20 years ago which to many epitomizes the irrational & tribal nature of politics in which partisan hacks look for any excuse to attack an enemy no matter how trivial or unrelated to the job of governing the country it is?
Obviously not. Please apply the principle of charity. These are some salient examples. Of course there are others.
You’re a smart guy. I can’t understand why you’re being so nit-picky. It’s not helpful.
gwern might be a smart guy, but he is below average at charitably interpreting opposing arguments, at least this is my impression based on my interaction with him here and on IRC. It’s not an uncommon failing, Eliezer comes across as uncharitable, as well, especially when dealing with those perceived as lower status (he was very very charitable to Karnofsky).
Of course, the impression of uncharitabilty (uncharitableness? is it even a word?) is often given off when the person is a few levels above you and goes through the most charitable interpretations of your argument in their head quickly, realizes that they are all wrong, as well, and rejects the argument without explicitly discussing why the charitable versions are no better than the uncharitable ones. I don’t know how to tell the difference.
Of course there are others, but I am not interested in arguing by anecdote especially when the anecdotes don’t seem to support your thesis. (Seriously, of all the scandals you had to pick the Lewinsky scandal?) What exactly am I supposed to be applying charity to here? Do you have any systematic, concrete, empirical data that supports your claim that factchecking improves politics?
How are either of the two examples of something being improved?