Breaking the walls won’t be easy, because she deliberately compartimentalize. So I’m not sure that pointing out that in “real” life, she acts as a realist would work. Most likely, she would say it’s not the same thing, and that different methods of thinking apply to different situations. She denies the possibility of a unified principle, let alone the fact that we may have found it.
I think drilling for the reason might help. If you keep asking, innocently, playing a dumb devils advocate (“But what do you mean by X? How does Y justify Z? I don’t understand why Q, etc.”) and then you can at some point criticise her for believing in strange things that she can’t explain to you in simple terms.
Roll up your sleeves and use the 37 ways words can be wrong, is my advice.
Orthogonal idea: Find some way to incite cognitive dissonance with her world view on the basis, perhaps, of object level morality.
On a personal note I happen to almost only interact with Traditional Rationalist or Very Sane For Common Man persons, so I have little practical knowledge of this.
She sounds like the ordinary compartmentalized nutcase.
What you need to do is ask her why she doesn’t act on her non-belief in realism, why she doesn’t apply the far thinking to the near thinking.
When I gloss over most of the comments here, they are as hilarious as they are useful and true. Which is to say a lot. I love this community.
Jaynes? Didn’t you mean Aumann?
Breaking the walls won’t be easy, because she deliberately compartimentalize. So I’m not sure that pointing out that in “real” life, she acts as a realist would work. Most likely, she would say it’s not the same thing, and that different methods of thinking apply to different situations. She denies the possibility of a unified principle, let alone the fact that we may have found it.
Sorry, my bad.
I think drilling for the reason might help. If you keep asking, innocently, playing a dumb devils advocate (“But what do you mean by X? How does Y justify Z? I don’t understand why Q, etc.”) and then you can at some point criticise her for believing in strange things that she can’t explain to you in simple terms.
Roll up your sleeves and use the 37 ways words can be wrong, is my advice.
Orthogonal idea: Find some way to incite cognitive dissonance with her world view on the basis, perhaps, of object level morality.
On a personal note I happen to almost only interact with Traditional Rationalist or Very Sane For Common Man persons, so I have little practical knowledge of this.