I am annotating this, even though it is old as hell, because new readers go through stuff like this (or at least my n=1 says so), and I want to highlight something.
As I understand the below quote, this is the clearest “No True Scottsman” [1] I have seen on LessWrong.
On those topics (those on which papers in journals are actually written), their beliefs are more accurate than yours or mine or a typical Christian faithful’s. On Jesus’ magical powers they aren’t speaking as experts, regardless of what they say. No one can be an expert on that because it’s not a scientific topic.
I highlight this so that I can be corrected if I am wrong (as the positive comment score would usually indicate this mistake isn’t being made), or so that, if I am right, we can see how easily a conversational slip like this can happen, even when debating “good arguing stuff”.
I am annotating this, even though it is old as hell, because new readers go through stuff like this (or at least my n=1 says so), and I want to highlight something.
As I understand the below quote, this is the clearest “No True Scottsman” [1] I have seen on LessWrong.
I highlight this so that I can be corrected if I am wrong (as the positive comment score would usually indicate this mistake isn’t being made), or so that, if I am right, we can see how easily a conversational slip like this can happen, even when debating “good arguing stuff”.