For me, this post suffers from excessive meta. It is a top-level response to a top-level response to a comment on a top-level post of unclear merit. As I read it I find myself continually drawn to go back up the stack to determine whether your characterizations of Zach’s characterizations of Yudkowsky’s characterizations of Omnizoid’s characterizations seem fair. This is not a good reading experience for me.
Instead, I would prefer to see a post like this written to make positive claims for the proposed rule of epistemic conduct “personal attacks after object-level arguments”. A hypothetical structure:
What is the proposed rule? Does “after” mean chronologically, or within the structure of a single post, book, or sequence? Is it equivalent to Bulverism, poisoning the well, or some other well-known rule, or is it novel? Does it depend on whether the person being attacked is alive, or whether they are a public figure?
What are some good, clean, uncontroversial examples of writing that follows the rules vs writing that breaks the rules?
What are the justifications for the proposed rule? Will people unconsciously update incorrectly?
What are the best counter-arguments against the proposed rule? Why do you think they fail?
What are the consequences for breaking the rule? Who shall enforce the rule and its consequences?
I think this would be a better timeless contribution to our epistemic norms.
For me, this post suffers from excessive meta. It is a top-level response to a top-level response to a comment on a top-level post of unclear merit. As I read it I find myself continually drawn to go back up the stack to determine whether your characterizations of Zach’s characterizations of Yudkowsky’s characterizations of Omnizoid’s characterizations seem fair. This is not a good reading experience for me.
Instead, I would prefer to see a post like this written to make positive claims for the proposed rule of epistemic conduct “personal attacks after object-level arguments”. A hypothetical structure:
What is the proposed rule? Does “after” mean chronologically, or within the structure of a single post, book, or sequence? Is it equivalent to Bulverism, poisoning the well, or some other well-known rule, or is it novel? Does it depend on whether the person being attacked is alive, or whether they are a public figure?
What are some good, clean, uncontroversial examples of writing that follows the rules vs writing that breaks the rules?
What are the justifications for the proposed rule? Will people unconsciously update incorrectly?
What are the best counter-arguments against the proposed rule? Why do you think they fail?
What are the consequences for breaking the rule? Who shall enforce the rule and its consequences?
I think this would be a better timeless contribution to our epistemic norms.
I’d also add “6. Does it still apply when the object-level arguments are about a person?”