4 ms·

The existence of secret knowledge is unfalsifiable, unless we engage in prediction contests or something like that [1]. However, we can verify that non-intelle

The existence of secret knowledge is unfalsifiable, unless we engage in prediction contests or something like that [1]. However, we can verify that non-intellectual arguments in response to certain ideas are quite common here. Here is one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353366 You can dig up more by reading my posting history, for example. [1] I actually happen to have secret forbidden knowledge on politically incorrect factors in lending and educational performance. For example, I'd let you purchase a portfolio of consumer loans and then I'd use my secret knowledge about the predictive effect of race on defaults to buy the best ones for myself.

sillysaurus3 10y ago
I want to agree with you, but your example isn't great. You used charged language in the comment, which led to a predictable result in the replies. You were mocking the person you replied to. Do you have another example?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The only "charged language" (by which I assume you mean the cursing) was a direct quote from the person who's comment I was paraphrasing. Can you quote the piece of my comment that you believe is "mocking"? I think you are engaging in the exact bias pavlov described. And again, you never answered my original question: do you believe that if I wrote "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...", an intellectual discussion would result?
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    Parent comment: I mean don't get me wrong, the data is valuable. But this is a company that constantly says "fuck you" to the law and fair work practices. Let's keep that in mind. Your comment: I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers). "Mocking" was too harsh, so I apologize for saying that's what you were doing. But people generally don't like it when you quote them, then alter the quote. In other words, there seems to be little reason to echo the parent by saying "I mean, don't get me wrong, ..." except to put everyone on the defensive. Why intentionally make it a "the world vs you" exchange? When it's a delicate topic, of course you have to bring it up tactfully. If you're asking whether intellectual discussion will result if you don't bring it up tactfully, then I'd have to say no, it won't. But it's all about how you frame it. Here's an alternate way to phrase the point: "Flouting the law is also known as civil disobedience. What's the difference between, say, Rosa Parks doing it and Uber? Certainly the magnitude is different: the civil rights movement was much more important than breaking up a taxi monopoly. But was it a difference in degree, or in kind?" I think an intellectual discussion would result from that. You'd get one or two replies along the lines of "If you can't see the difference between Rosa Parks and Uber, then I don't know what to say," but those can be ignored. People would be much more likely to engage with the point. I was mainly hoping to see more examples of contrarian viewpoints, though.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I think it was clear that I was paraphrasing to show a fallacy, not attempting to suggest the parent actually believed this. Out of curiosity, if paraphrasing someone else's argument is so untactful, how come the paraphrased comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954036 is not the one downmodded? People expressing mainstream views don't seem to be held to the same requirements of tactfullness. Here's another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12695708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12695708 Here's one that was flagkilled and resurrected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12498776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12498776
wfo 10y ago
Just to be clear here, you're directing us towards your comment history as evidence of unjust persecution by "non-intellectual" opponents. What a shocking coincidence the people who disagree with you are non-intellectual. Did you ever perhaps consider that you are the one being non-intellectual? I see this tactic all the time on the right, people claiming they only want a "frank, honest discussion", but it seems words like "frank" "honest discussion" are so often code words for "a discussion where I can say anything I please no matter how nasty or offensive or how little I understand the issue, without any evidence, argument, or support, and nobody calls me out on it". On slavery, I don't really know that anyone cares if it's economically beneficial, because it's morally disgusting -- its economic benefits are moot and pointless to discuss, since it's simply not an option for a civilized society. So by arguing in support of its benefits you are trying to lend credence to the idea that it should be instituted, which is why all the hate. Or so the argument goes. I think the problem here is not with presenting a defense of its economic benefits, it's with the central neoliberal fallacy rather that suggests "good economically" == "good", or even suggests "good economically" is a thing that can exist and be defined without considering perspectives, e.g. "good economically for the owning class" whereas I'd argue the entire notion is nebulous and murky and undefinable, and even if it were not, wholly irrelevant to the issue since it's a moral one not an economic one.

sillysaurus3 10y ago

I want to agree with you, but your example isn't great. You used charged language in the comment, which led to a predictable result in the replies. You were mocking the person you replied to. Do you have another example?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The only "charged language" (by which I assume you mean the cursing) was a direct quote from the person who's comment I was paraphrasing. Can you quote the piece of my comment that you believe is "mocking"? I think you are engaging in the exact bias pavlov described. And again, you never answered my original question: do you believe that if I wrote "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...", an intellectual discussion would result?
- sillysaurus3 10y ago
  Parent comment: I mean don't get me wrong, the data is valuable. But this is a company that constantly says "fuck you" to the law and fair work practices. Let's keep that in mind. Your comment: I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers). "Mocking" was too harsh, so I apologize for saying that's what you were doing. But people generally don't like it when you quote them, then alter the quote. In other words, there seems to be little reason to echo the parent by saying "I mean, don't get me wrong, ..." except to put everyone on the defensive. Why intentionally make it a "the world vs you" exchange? When it's a delicate topic, of course you have to bring it up tactfully. If you're asking whether intellectual discussion will result if you don't bring it up tactfully, then I'd have to say no, it won't. But it's all about how you frame it. Here's an alternate way to phrase the point: "Flouting the law is also known as civil disobedience. What's the difference between, say, Rosa Parks doing it and Uber? Certainly the magnitude is different: the civil rights movement was much more important than breaking up a taxi monopoly. But was it a difference in degree, or in kind?" I think an intellectual discussion would result from that. You'd get one or two replies along the lines of "If you can't see the difference between Rosa Parks and Uber, then I don't know what to say," but those can be ignored. People would be much more likely to engage with the point. I was mainly hoping to see more examples of contrarian viewpoints, though.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I think it was clear that I was paraphrasing to show a fallacy, not attempting to suggest the parent actually believed this. Out of curiosity, if paraphrasing someone else's argument is so untactful, how come the paraphrased comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954036 is not the one downmodded? People expressing mainstream views don't seem to be held to the same requirements of tactfullness. Here's another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12695708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12695708 Here's one that was flagkilled and resurrected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12498776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12498776

wfo 10y ago

Just to be clear here, you're directing us towards your comment history as evidence of unjust persecution by "non-intellectual" opponents. What a shocking coincidence the people who disagree with you are non-intellectual. Did you ever perhaps consider that you are the one being non-intellectual? I see this tactic all the time on the right, people claiming they only want a "frank, honest discussion", but it seems words like "frank" "honest discussion" are so often code words for "a discussion where I can say anything I please no matter how nasty or offensive or how little I understand the issue, without any evidence, argument, or support, and nobody calls me out on it". On slavery, I don't really know that anyone cares if it's economically beneficial, because it's morally disgusting -- its economic benefits are moot and pointless to discuss, since it's simply not an option for a civilized society. So by arguing in support of its benefits you are trying to lend credence to the idea that it should be instituted, which is why all the hate. Or so the argument goes. I think the problem here is not with presenting a defense of its economic benefits, it's with the central neoliberal fallacy rather that suggests "good economically" == "good", or even suggests "good economically" is a thing that can exist and be defined without considering perspectives, e.g. "good economically for the owning class" whereas I'd argue the entire notion is nebulous and murky and undefinable, and even if it were not, wholly irrelevant to the issue since it's a moral one not an economic one.