One workaround would be to assign high confidence only to beliefs for which you have read n academic papers on the subject.
Academic papers are what get’s published, not what’s true. The difference is particularly pronounced for political topics.
you should be able to accurately restate your opponent’s position
There are limits. You can’t accurately restate gibberish. You can mimic it as in a Turing test, but I don’t see any criteria for accuracy.
I think the best you can do is identify the unstated assumptions. When you can get both sides to say “If A,B,C the side1 is right, and if A~,B~,C~ then side2 is right, and if neither, then side1 and side2 each only has a piece of the truth.”
Good point. If someone appears to be emitting gibberish on a subject, but seems to be a reasonably functional member of society (i.e. is probably not floridly psychotic), and there’s nothing about the structure of the subject that seems to license gibberish (e.g. a subject where dreams or psychedelic visions are treated as unquoted evidence) this may indicate that you simply don’t understand that subject and should learn more before attempting to judge their statements.
For instance, I would expect that a person who had no higher math would consider correct statements in category theory to be indistinguishable from gibberish.
this may indicate that you simply don’t understand that subject and should learn more before attempting to judge their statements.
It may, but not necessarily. Especially on issues of politics and religion, otherwise rational people may repeat gibberish if they think the alternative is to “let their side down” and “let the other side win”.
Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard the almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse, who only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space.
People have all sorts of crazy nonsense in their heads, particularly with respect to morality and politics, as Stirner pointed out. If you want to conclude that I just don’t understand their perfectly sensible views, feel free. If you want to conclude that you just don’t understand them when they seem to be talking nonsense to you, knock yourself out. I have a lifetime of experience to the contrary, and am not persuaded by your say so.
and there’s nothing about the structure of the subject that seems to license gibberish
The subject doesn’t license gibberish, though people often take such license in politics, morality, religion, etc. Nowhere is there more nonsense, and political belief is the subject matter under discussion.
If you want to conclude that I just don’t understand their perfectly sensible views, feel free. If you want to conclude that you just don’t understand them when they seem to be talking nonsense to you, knock yourself out. I have a lifetime of experience to the contrary, and am not persuaded by your say so.
Ok… so, as long as we’re in a community developed specifically for such things—tell me, what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind about Those Evil Meddling People, and in what regard?
The point on crazy nonsense applies to meddlers and non meddlers alike.
What would it take for me to change my views with respect to how much crazy I estimate in other people’s heads? It would help, if upon examination, they could routinely provide sensible explanations for what seems to me nonsense.
I have confidence that I could take the ideological Turing test and pass myself off as being quite sensible to most of them. Few of them could do it to me.
I have confidence that I could take the ideological Turing test and pass myself off as being quite sensible to most of them.
Well, honestly, I doubt it—take e.g. your methodological individualism. From what I’ve read of it, (a few blog posts by Austrian economists) it basically appears as a crazy nonsensical fairytale, to be invoked as ideological justification for a “libertarian” narrative of society.
I claim that the historical dynamics of actually existing societies can’t be usefully explained by it—that a massive amount of historical… stuff is deterministic, intersubjective and not easily pinpointed but far from “abstract”/”ghostly”, and shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them. So, could you make a strong and unequivocal argument against methodological individualism, from whatever position?
shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them
This seems not only intuitively obvious, but a prerequisite for (e.g.) advertising and propaganda techniques actually working well enough for anyone to bother spending much money on them.
Methodological individualism doesn’t preclude someone from passing an ideological Turing test for someone who doesn’t use it, just as sanity doesn’t prevent someone from pretending to be insane.
Ok, go ahead, then. Hit me with your best shot. If you give me a halfway serious effort, I promise I’ll return the favour with a defense of MI. (From what I’ve heard, Popper is the best known non-Austrian champion of MI; need to read up on him.)
“It’s not fair! You’re so hateful! The government is us. It takes a village. It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. What difference at this point does it make?”
How’d I do?
But I don’t think this is the way the Turing test is supposed to work. I don’t just pontificate, you’re supposed to be an interrogator, and there’s supposed to be another blinded participant who is an average run of the mill American liberal. I think we lack the facilities, but it could be good fun.
Multiheaded would be the judge, and the US liberal would be the comparison who would have to be more convincingly liberal than me by Multiheaded’s estimation.
Why American? Because I’m American, and I wasn’t claiming to be able to impersonate every crazy on the globe.
As for why liberal, it’s a crazy I’m familiar with a large population here, and he said “Evil Meddling People”, so the shoe fit.
I don’t claim that I can impersonate every crazy in the world, only ones I’m familiar with.
Though Multiheaded really shouldn’t be the judge. It should be another run of the mill American liberal. The relevant Turing test is whether I can pass myself off as one of the tribe.
It’s not a necessary condition. Academic papers are regularly mistaken either due to methodological limitations, bad statistical methodology, publication bias, stretching of conclusions and a host of other factors. The fact that information has been published is evidence that it contains true information, but is not even necessarily strong evidence. Keep in mind that in the field of cancer research, which is on much firmer quantitative footing than political science “research,” researchers were unable to replicate 89% of studies.
One workaround would be to assign high confidence only to beliefs for which you have read n academic papers on the subject. For example, only assign 90% confidence if you’ve read ten academic papers.
If you have read 10 papers on a political question, all the papers are concurring, and they represent the entire body of literature on that question, then 90% can be warranted. I strongly suspect that if you do a fair review of any question there will be a tremendous amount of disagreement, however, and a well-calibrated observer would rarely approach 90% without strong pre-existing ideological biases subverting their estimation processes.
I have read quite a few macroeconomics papers, and there are very few non-trival things that I would assign a 90% probability to, and almost by definition those aren’t the sort of things people talk about in “political discussions.” The more you read the more humble you become with respect to our level of knowledge in the social sciences, especially if you are literate in the hard sciences. If you expect your knowledge to cash out in terms of predictions about the world, we don’t know much. This is why if you ask an economics professor almost any question of substance, they will provide you with a lengthy docket of caveats.
Academic papers are what get’s published, not what’s true. The difference is particularly pronounced for political topics.
There are limits. You can’t accurately restate gibberish. You can mimic it as in a Turing test, but I don’t see any criteria for accuracy.
I think the best you can do is identify the unstated assumptions. When you can get both sides to say “If A,B,C the side1 is right, and if A~,B~,C~ then side2 is right, and if neither, then side1 and side2 each only has a piece of the truth.”
Good point. If someone appears to be emitting gibberish on a subject, but seems to be a reasonably functional member of society (i.e. is probably not floridly psychotic), and there’s nothing about the structure of the subject that seems to license gibberish (e.g. a subject where dreams or psychedelic visions are treated as unquoted evidence) this may indicate that you simply don’t understand that subject and should learn more before attempting to judge their statements.
For instance, I would expect that a person who had no higher math would consider correct statements in category theory to be indistinguishable from gibberish.
It may, but not necessarily. Especially on issues of politics and religion, otherwise rational people may repeat gibberish if they think the alternative is to “let their side down” and “let the other side win”.
To take some liberties with Stirner:
People have all sorts of crazy nonsense in their heads, particularly with respect to morality and politics, as Stirner pointed out. If you want to conclude that I just don’t understand their perfectly sensible views, feel free. If you want to conclude that you just don’t understand them when they seem to be talking nonsense to you, knock yourself out. I have a lifetime of experience to the contrary, and am not persuaded by your say so.
The subject doesn’t license gibberish, though people often take such license in politics, morality, religion, etc. Nowhere is there more nonsense, and political belief is the subject matter under discussion.
Ok… so, as long as we’re in a community developed specifically for such things—tell me, what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind about Those Evil Meddling People, and in what regard?
The point on crazy nonsense applies to meddlers and non meddlers alike.
What would it take for me to change my views with respect to how much crazy I estimate in other people’s heads? It would help, if upon examination, they could routinely provide sensible explanations for what seems to me nonsense.
I have confidence that I could take the ideological Turing test and pass myself off as being quite sensible to most of them. Few of them could do it to me.
Well, honestly, I doubt it—take e.g. your methodological individualism. From what I’ve read of it, (a few blog posts by Austrian economists) it basically appears as a crazy nonsensical fairytale, to be invoked as ideological justification for a “libertarian” narrative of society.
I claim that the historical dynamics of actually existing societies can’t be usefully explained by it—that a massive amount of historical… stuff is deterministic, intersubjective and not easily pinpointed but far from “abstract”/”ghostly”, and shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them. So, could you make a strong and unequivocal argument against methodological individualism, from whatever position?
This seems not only intuitively obvious, but a prerequisite for (e.g.) advertising and propaganda techniques actually working well enough for anyone to bother spending much money on them.
Methodological individualism doesn’t preclude someone from passing an ideological Turing test for someone who doesn’t use it, just as sanity doesn’t prevent someone from pretending to be insane.
Ok, go ahead, then. Hit me with your best shot. If you give me a halfway serious effort, I promise I’ll return the favour with a defense of MI. (From what I’ve heard, Popper is the best known non-Austrian champion of MI; need to read up on him.)
“It’s not fair! You’re so hateful! The government is us. It takes a village. It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. What difference at this point does it make?”
How’d I do?
But I don’t think this is the way the Turing test is supposed to work. I don’t just pontificate, you’re supposed to be an interrogator, and there’s supposed to be another blinded participant who is an average run of the mill American liberal. I think we lack the facilities, but it could be good fun.
Multiheaded isn’t American, so why would you want the judge to be?
Multiheaded would be the judge, and the US liberal would be the comparison who would have to be more convincingly liberal than me by Multiheaded’s estimation.
Why American? Because I’m American, and I wasn’t claiming to be able to impersonate every crazy on the globe.
As for why liberal, it’s a crazy I’m familiar with a large population here, and he said “Evil Meddling People”, so the shoe fit.
I don’t claim that I can impersonate every crazy in the world, only ones I’m familiar with.
Though Multiheaded really shouldn’t be the judge. It should be another run of the mill American liberal. The relevant Turing test is whether I can pass myself off as one of the tribe.
Right, it’s a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
It’s not a necessary condition. Academic papers are regularly mistaken either due to methodological limitations, bad statistical methodology, publication bias, stretching of conclusions and a host of other factors. The fact that information has been published is evidence that it contains true information, but is not even necessarily strong evidence. Keep in mind that in the field of cancer research, which is on much firmer quantitative footing than political science “research,” researchers were unable to replicate 89% of studies.
Do you think that the standards given in the OP are too demanding? Not demanding enough?
If you have read 10 papers on a political question, all the papers are concurring, and they represent the entire body of literature on that question, then 90% can be warranted. I strongly suspect that if you do a fair review of any question there will be a tremendous amount of disagreement, however, and a well-calibrated observer would rarely approach 90% without strong pre-existing ideological biases subverting their estimation processes.
I have read quite a few macroeconomics papers, and there are very few non-trival things that I would assign a 90% probability to, and almost by definition those aren’t the sort of things people talk about in “political discussions.” The more you read the more humble you become with respect to our level of knowledge in the social sciences, especially if you are literate in the hard sciences. If you expect your knowledge to cash out in terms of predictions about the world, we don’t know much. This is why if you ask an economics professor almost any question of substance, they will provide you with a lengthy docket of caveats.
I agree with all of this.