While I agree in this case, your criticism as stated is so vague that it could be made of any idea, and the only defense would be to ask specifically what confusion you refer to, which ideas are poorly understood. It is only in considering the deeper details that we can separate ideas which deserve this criticism from those which don’t. As your comment stands, it does not help cousin_it to understand his mistakes if you are correct, nor can he respond in a way to reveal your mistakes if you are wrong.
While I agree in this case, your criticism as stated is so vague that it could be made of any idea
Yet is wasn’t made of any idea, and if you agree in this case, you deem it appropriate for this case, in which it was made. It is a fairly general principle: don’t try to juggle a thousand angry cats at once, human mind is not that strong.
But if I did not already agree, your comment would not have convinced me.
Right. It wasn’t an argument, it was a concept intended to give clearer structure to your own impression. Epistemic rationality, for example, is targeted at giving you accurate estimates, whatever they are, even though it’s not domain-specific and it doesn’t argue for specific positions on specific questions.
While I agree in this case, your criticism as stated is so vague that it could be made of any idea, and the only defense would be to ask specifically what confusion you refer to, which ideas are poorly understood. It is only in considering the deeper details that we can separate ideas which deserve this criticism from those which don’t. As your comment stands, it does not help cousin_it to understand his mistakes if you are correct, nor can he respond in a way to reveal your mistakes if you are wrong.
Yet is wasn’t made of any idea, and if you agree in this case, you deem it appropriate for this case, in which it was made. It is a fairly general principle: don’t try to juggle a thousand angry cats at once, human mind is not that strong.
Vladimir—“concentrated confusion”, “a thousand angry cats”: that’s exactly the kind of spice that your earlier post needed! :-)
Also fewer function words...
But if I did not already agree, your comment would not have convinced me.
Essentially, I think it would be appropriate if it were actually supported, not just supportable.
Right. It wasn’t an argument, it was a concept intended to give clearer structure to your own impression. Epistemic rationality, for example, is targeted at giving you accurate estimates, whatever they are, even though it’s not domain-specific and it doesn’t argue for specific positions on specific questions.