If I am actually bad enough at thinking and writing that I am a net loss to this community, as you seem to be implying, I do not see why this is so. If I don’t know what you are requesting that I fix, how should I know when to come back?
Your repeated refusal to justify your claims strikes me as a form of logical rudeness. When I look at my total karma and the average karma of posts and comments I’ve made, I see that there is generally some level of appreciation for my contributions to this website. Why do you disagree with the consensus strongly enough to ask me to leave?
No, I don’t think there’s room to consider a refusal to take part in a debate a form of logical rudeness. The purpose of logical rudeness is to hide the absence of a counter-argument: openly refusing to offer one is a different thing.
Is it really unobjectionable to make a strong attack on a position and refuse to explain why?
It can be justified in certain circumstances. Sometimes I see a terribly wrong argument, but providing a satisfactory counter-argument would require much more time and space than I have available. In such situations, I will sometimes write a reply that the argument is wrong, but proving this would require more effort that I can realistically afford, so that the author should take it on authority and good faith that he needs to reconsider his position (and perhaps do some more learning before he’s competent to tackle the problem constructively).
(This is not meant to imply anything more specific about this concrete dispute—I am merely giving a general answer to the question.)
Is it really unobjectionable to make a strong attack on a position and refuse to explain why?
The strength of the attack should be evaluated according to evidence contained in the attack. If it’s a statement from authority, then not very much evidence, depending on who states what on which topic. Still better than no input, but often not by much.
I don’t have time for a justification, take it for what it is. That may be rude, but it is definitely not analogous to what is discussed in the post you linked to. I suppose though, in terms of justifications, that fact is pretty close to what I’m thinking of. You seem to implicitly make analogies which are simply wrong, to do it routinely, and to do it in a manner which would be time-consuming to correct. I’d rather Karma ask for me, but I think people are far too generous with Karma in general, not just with you.
The post on logical rudeness identifies the following subtypes of the phenomenon:
Switching between two arguments whenever headway is being made against one, such that neither can ever be refuted because the topic is changed every time that becomes a danger.
Suddenly weakening a claim without acknowledging that it is any sort of concession.
Offering a non-true rejection.
Eliezer also identifies the opposite of logical rudeness, to which he aspires:
I stick my neck out so that it can be chopped off if I’m wrong, and when I stick my neck out it stays stuck out, and if I have to withdraw it I’ll do so as a visible concession. I may parry—and because I’m human, I may even parry when I shouldn’t—but I at least endeavor not to dodge. Where I plant my standard, I have sent an invitation to capture that banner; and I’ll stand by that invitation.
Saying (as you have) that “you’re stupid and bad at thinking and I won’t say why but it’s so bad that I want you to go away” is a form of logical rudeness I would generally identify as
Making strong claims, stating that they are backed up by strong evidence, and then refusing to provide that evidence.
Like the subtypes Eliezer describes, it’s a form of motivated arguing that makes losing the argument impossible.
That doesn’t sound like any sort of neck-sticking-out I’m familiar with. You have not invited me to capture your banner; you have hidden it.
The opinion “this is stupid” is correctly expressed with a downvote. The opinion “this is so stupid it requires multiple downvotes” is correctly expressed by convincing others to add their downvotes to yours. Most of us didn’t come here to read unthought personal opinions.
If I am actually bad enough at thinking and writing that I am a net loss to this community, as you seem to be implying, I do not see why this is so. If I don’t know what you are requesting that I fix, how should I know when to come back?
Your repeated refusal to justify your claims strikes me as a form of logical rudeness. When I look at my total karma and the average karma of posts and comments I’ve made, I see that there is generally some level of appreciation for my contributions to this website. Why do you disagree with the consensus strongly enough to ask me to leave?
No, I don’t think there’s room to consider a refusal to take part in a debate a form of logical rudeness. The purpose of logical rudeness is to hide the absence of a counter-argument: openly refusing to offer one is a different thing.
I would think that if one were not interested in taking part in a debate, one wouldn’t start one.
Is it really unobjectionable to make a strong attack on a position and refuse to explain why?
WrongBot:
It can be justified in certain circumstances. Sometimes I see a terribly wrong argument, but providing a satisfactory counter-argument would require much more time and space than I have available. In such situations, I will sometimes write a reply that the argument is wrong, but proving this would require more effort that I can realistically afford, so that the author should take it on authority and good faith that he needs to reconsider his position (and perhaps do some more learning before he’s competent to tackle the problem constructively).
(This is not meant to imply anything more specific about this concrete dispute—I am merely giving a general answer to the question.)
The strength of the attack should be evaluated according to evidence contained in the attack. If it’s a statement from authority, then not very much evidence, depending on who states what on which topic. Still better than no input, but often not by much.
I don’t have time for a justification, take it for what it is. That may be rude, but it is definitely not analogous to what is discussed in the post you linked to. I suppose though, in terms of justifications, that fact is pretty close to what I’m thinking of. You seem to implicitly make analogies which are simply wrong, to do it routinely, and to do it in a manner which would be time-consuming to correct. I’d rather Karma ask for me, but I think people are far too generous with Karma in general, not just with you.
The post on logical rudeness identifies the following subtypes of the phenomenon:
Switching between two arguments whenever headway is being made against one, such that neither can ever be refuted because the topic is changed every time that becomes a danger.
Suddenly weakening a claim without acknowledging that it is any sort of concession.
Offering a non-true rejection.
Eliezer also identifies the opposite of logical rudeness, to which he aspires:
Saying (as you have) that “you’re stupid and bad at thinking and I won’t say why but it’s so bad that I want you to go away” is a form of logical rudeness I would generally identify as
Making strong claims, stating that they are backed up by strong evidence, and then refusing to provide that evidence.
Like the subtypes Eliezer describes, it’s a form of motivated arguing that makes losing the argument impossible. That doesn’t sound like any sort of neck-sticking-out I’m familiar with. You have not invited me to capture your banner; you have hidden it.
I’m not making an argument. I’m making a request, or stating a fact about my opinion if you prefer.
The opinion “this is stupid” is correctly expressed with a downvote. The opinion “this is so stupid it requires multiple downvotes” is correctly expressed by convincing others to add their downvotes to yours. Most of us didn’t come here to read unthought personal opinions.
Valid point.
Apparently your post hits a nerve with some people here.