This is a special case of Motte-and-Bailey arguments (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey). Precision in discussion is the solution, and if you’re in a forum that doesn’t make such precision easy, it’s not a very good place to have such discussions.
Indeed. As I said, I don’t expect this to break new ground, but I am writing this as a pointer for future reference. I considered including mention of the motte-and-bailey concept, but decided that given it is 1) not well-known outside of the rationality community and 2) controversial inside it, it wasn’t worth it and linking to Eliezer’s and Scott’s writings on language would be sufficient (though I now notice that Scott’s “All in All, Another Brick In The Motte” isn’t included in core reading).
Wait, it isn’t? Do you (or anyone else reading this comment) know if there was a particular reason why not? Also, I didn’t know Motte and Bailey was controversial in the rationality community, I’d be interested in reading links of people opposing it if you have any.
Wait, it isn’t? Do you (or anyone else reading this comment) know if there was a particular reason why not?
I’m not sure what “it” is supposed to refer to.
Also, I didn’t know Motte and Bailey was controversial in the rationality community, I’d be interested in reading links of people opposing it if you have any.
This is a special case of Motte-and-Bailey arguments (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey). Precision in discussion is the solution, and if you’re in a forum that doesn’t make such precision easy, it’s not a very good place to have such discussions.
Indeed. As I said, I don’t expect this to break new ground, but I am writing this as a pointer for future reference. I considered including mention of the motte-and-bailey concept, but decided that given it is 1) not well-known outside of the rationality community and 2) controversial inside it, it wasn’t worth it and linking to Eliezer’s and Scott’s writings on language would be sufficient (though I now notice that Scott’s “All in All, Another Brick In The Motte” isn’t included in core reading).
Wait, it isn’t? Do you (or anyone else reading this comment) know if there was a particular reason why not? Also, I didn’t know Motte and Bailey was controversial in the rationality community, I’d be interested in reading links of people opposing it if you have any.
I’m not sure what “it” is supposed to refer to.
See Against Motte and Bailey by ozymandias
And thanks
You’re welcome.
“It” was supposed to refer to the article “All in All, Another Brick in the Motte.”
I have no idea why it isn’t included.