Someone at LW told me about an argument-mapping website which aimed to provide an online forum where debate would actually be good—an excellent place on the internet to check for the arguments on both sides of any issue, and all the relevant counterarguments to each.
Unfortunately, the moderators interpreted the “principle of charity” to imply no cynical arguments can be made; that is, the principle of charity was understood as a fundamental assumption that humans are basically good.
This made some questions dealing with corruption, human intentions, etc were ruled out as a matter of policy. For example, at least on my understanding of their rules, debating hansonian skepticism would be against policy. Similarly, applying hansonian skepticism to argue pro/con other points would be against policy.
Someone at LW told me about an argument-mapping website which aimed to provide an online forum where debate would actually be good—an excellent place on the internet to check for the arguments on both sides of any issue, and all the relevant counterarguments to each.
Unfortunately, the moderators interpreted the “principle of charity” to imply no cynical arguments can be made; that is, the principle of charity was understood as a fundamental assumption that humans are basically good.
This made some questions dealing with corruption, human intentions, etc were ruled out as a matter of policy. For example, at least on my understanding of their rules, debating hansonian skepticism would be against policy. Similarly, applying hansonian skepticism to argue pro/con other points would be against policy.
(I don’t recall what the website was called.)
Wow. Okay, that’s a good example.