Such is the apparent resolution of Tom Hunt’s map of the territory.
Just because I can quote a 37 word paragraph of someone’s speech doesn’t mean that I accurately model the resolution of the map of the territory of that person.
Assuming that you can infer the full position of a person from a short exerpt is wrong.
Twitter culture where people think that everything boils down to short exerpts is deeply troubling.
Just because I can quote a 37 word paragraph of someone’s speech doesn’t mean that I accurately model the resolution of the map of the territory of that person.
Assuming that you can infer the full position of a person from a short exerpt is wrong. Twitter culture where people think that everything boils down to short exerpts is deeply troubling.
I agree. It was really just a pithy way of saying that he has a naive conception of this particular issue.
Note that ChristianKl’s objection is that a short comment is at best a crude snapshot of someone’s mind; it seems rash to make conclusions about Hunt’s conceptions from just that comment.
I agree that that’s true in general, but on the other hand, when someone gives a weak argument for theism, I don’t regard it as rash to disregard their opinion on the matter. I can have little or no knowledge of the internal process while only observing the outcome and, because I have confidence about what sort of outcomes good processes produce, infer that whatever process he is using, it is probably not one that draws an accurate map in this particular region.
I can have little or no knowledge of the internal process while only observing the outcome
To assess the outcome you would need to know the context in which the paragraph stands. You would need to listen to the speech.
Having a high confidence that a 37 words excerpt is enough to judge the quality of someone’s thinking is a reasoning error.
I agree that that’s true in general, but on the other hand, when someone gives a weak argument for theism
If I read through the writings and speeches of Richard Dawkins I am highly confident that I can find a short paragraph were Dawkins makes a weak argument against theism. That’s no proof that Dawkins has a naive conception of the debate about theism.
The words that follow “they cry” in the speech are “now seriously”. He verbally tagged it as a joke. Making a bad joke isn’t proof of a naive conception of an issue.
Just because I can quote a 37 word paragraph of someone’s speech doesn’t mean that I accurately model the resolution of the map of the territory of that person.
Assuming that you can infer the full position of a person from a short exerpt is wrong. Twitter culture where people think that everything boils down to short exerpts is deeply troubling.
I agree. It was really just a pithy way of saying that he has a naive conception of this particular issue.
Note that ChristianKl’s objection is that a short comment is at best a crude snapshot of someone’s mind; it seems rash to make conclusions about Hunt’s conceptions from just that comment.
I agree that that’s true in general, but on the other hand, when someone gives a weak argument for theism, I don’t regard it as rash to disregard their opinion on the matter. I can have little or no knowledge of the internal process while only observing the outcome and, because I have confidence about what sort of outcomes good processes produce, infer that whatever process he is using, it is probably not one that draws an accurate map in this particular region.
To assess the outcome you would need to know the context in which the paragraph stands. You would need to listen to the speech. Having a high confidence that a 37 words excerpt is enough to judge the quality of someone’s thinking is a reasoning error.
If I read through the writings and speeches of Richard Dawkins I am highly confident that I can find a short paragraph were Dawkins makes a weak argument against theism. That’s no proof that Dawkins has a naive conception of the debate about theism.
The words that follow “they cry” in the speech are “now seriously”. He verbally tagged it as a joke. Making a bad joke isn’t proof of a naive conception of an issue.
Okay, I agree.