The point is that at least in most cases decisive arguments shouldn’t work, and if said to rational people, won’t work, because of epistemic learned helplessness.
Isn’t your point about all arguments, not just decisive arguments? What does it have to do with my discussion of which types of arguments are logically and epistemically better than other types of arguments?
Are you trying to say we should use worse forms of argument on purpose because of epistemic learned helplessness? I don’t see how that would help and you haven’t given any analysis about that. Epistemic learned helplessness is a separate issue from what I was talking about: when using arguments, which types are impersonally best, just looking at the subject matter and arguments themselves? I wasn’t talking about human behavior or psychology.
I wasn’t talking about human behavior or psychology.
If you do not intend to get humans to believe the arguments, you are correct that epistemic learned helplessness doesn’t apply. I do find this sort of odd, however.
I don’t think that such a post would imply “in order to get humans to believe them” anywhere near as much as this one did. Not every post implies the same things, after all!
The point is that at least in most cases decisive arguments shouldn’t work, and if said to rational people, won’t work, because of epistemic learned helplessness.
Isn’t your point about all arguments, not just decisive arguments? What does it have to do with my discussion of which types of arguments are logically and epistemically better than other types of arguments?
The idea is implicit that you should use decisive arguments because then people will have good reason to believe them.
Are you trying to say we should use worse forms of argument on purpose because of epistemic learned helplessness? I don’t see how that would help and you haven’t given any analysis about that. Epistemic learned helplessness is a separate issue from what I was talking about: when using arguments, which types are impersonally best, just looking at the subject matter and arguments themselves? I wasn’t talking about human behavior or psychology.
If you do not intend to get humans to believe the arguments, you are correct that epistemic learned helplessness doesn’t apply. I do find this sort of odd, however.
I don’t think you would reply like this if I wrote a post about how Bayesian arguments are better than frequentist arguments.
I don’t think that such a post would imply “in order to get humans to believe them” anywhere near as much as this one did. Not every post implies the same things, after all!