[SEQ RERUN] The Bottom Line
Today’s post, The Bottom Line was originally published on 28 September 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
If you first write at the bottom of a sheet of paper, “And therefore, the sky is green!”, it does not matter what arguments you write above it afterward; the conclusion is already written, and it is already correct or already wrong.
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we’ll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky’s old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day’s sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
To quote MoR, “Rationality can’t be used to argue for a fixed side, its only possible use is deciding which side to argue.” I find that this is one of the hardest points of rationality to get across and the easiest one to run afoul of.
Staking out a position and filtering the evidence just feels so natural. I catch myself doing it all the time, and probably don’t catch even more often. I also see it in this forum rather more frequently than one would expect from aspiring rationalists, once a discourse gets contentious (even our fearless leader is not immune), though the discussion is generally far more civil than on your garden variety internet forum. The religion/faith-related discussions are probably the worst. Thankfully, there are almost no political arguments here.
There is probably also the invisible silent rejection of “the wrong side”, by quietly downvoting posts and comments for the sole reason that one doesn’t like the point of view or the arguments expressed (just one of many reasons to downvote, to be sure, and there is no way to gather the relevant statistic).
So, I’m wondering, do people here also catch themselves writing out the bottom line before coming up with arguments, whether on LW or elsewhere? A concrete example would be nice.
For myself, I have been arguing against a blind belief in MWI here quite a bit, but some of the arguments I did not consider before made me think a lot more carefully about my position. (I have not been swayed, but hopefully not due to some unnoticed wetware bugs.)
Another “bottom line: I have also been quite confident that faith is basically orthogonal to the scientific approach, and is just one of the many ways people feel the need to express themselves, and had ready replies to most standard arguments from militant atheists (though I am not at all religious myself), but I feel rather less sure now.
Would you mind not using the expression “militant atheist” here, unless you’re referring to someone who does violence in the name of atheism? It comes across as somewhat derogatory, given the sort of actions that we would expect if someone were described as a “religious militant”.
I use the standard definition. Wikipedia: “Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheism regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated, and differs from moderate atheism because it holds religion to be harmful.” Nowhere it refers to violence. If you are unhappy with the definition, this is not the forum to argue about it.
Yes, Wikipedia has articles about all sorts of derogatory terms, epithets, etc. Sometimes, unfortunately, those articles are primarily written by contributors who want to present derogatory claims as if they were neutral evaluations. One I’m rather fond of is “market fundamentalism” — an article which, until a few more dispassionate voices stepped in, presented libertarian free-market economics as a sort of fanatical bigotry. (That is, it formerly treated “market fundamentalism” as the name of an actual thing to be described; whereas now it treats it as a pejorative term whose use is to be described.) Thanks for bringing my attention to another article in need of similar revision.
In any event, I still suggest that it would be a good idea to avoid using the expression “militant atheist” in a forum that has a lot of atheists in it, even if you believe that term is a “standard definition”, because it is perceived as derogatory by a lot of people.
The difference is that if you want to talk about “market fundamentalism” without sounding derogatory, you can simply call it “libertarian free-market economics”. “Militant atheism” lacks an equivalent term, and considering the prevailing opinions on LessWrong assuming that it is being used as an insult is rather leaping to conclusions, not to mention uncharitable and, as it turns out, wrong.
Most atheists are careful to signal their respect for religion and religious beliefs, many even expressing regret that they do not have faith themselves. As such, it is necessary to distinguish those who claim religion is actively bad and act accordingly from “ordinary” atheists. There is already a reasonable well-established term with this meaning; do you know a better one?