7 ms·

Yes, I am aware that you can use equivocation fallacies to explain that we can't know anything and all claims are equally likely to be true. I was talking about

Yes, I am aware that you can use equivocation fallacies to explain that we can't know anything and all claims are equally likely to be true. I was talking about what a wise person would do, though.

dang 7y ago
Please don't cross into rudeness in HN threads. Also, please do religious flamewar somewhere else, not here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  Would you mind explaining what about my comment was either rude or a flame, given the context in which rationality was named as a sign of being unwise?
  - dang 7y ago
    Any comment of the form, "Yes, I am aware that you can do stupid thing X, but I was talking about intelligent thing Y" is rude and a flame.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      ... when "stupid thing X" is making an argument that doesn't address the problem, and "you can do stupid thing X" is actually an explanation of what the problem with that argument is, and it's also not calling anyone names, but just calling out fallacious reasoning as what it is: Fallacious reasoning? Fallacious reasoning might well be correlated with stupidity, but that doesn't make pointing out fallacious reasoning an insult in itself. Equally, if the topic of the discussion is what makes a certain decision wise or not, as it happened to be the case here, I don't see how pointing out that a suggested methodology does not qualify due to fallacious reasoning in that methodology is either rude or a flame. That is, unless you consider the start of that discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20129547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20129547) a rude flame, which you possibly could, even though I don't think it was intended as such.
      - dang 7y ago
        I'm afraid I'm not really following this. In a way it doesn't matter, though, because even if I missed some subtlety in perceiving your comment as rude, I can guarantee you that most readers would miss that subtlety as well. Since there are plenty of ways to make your substantive points, why not just choose ones that don't straddle that line?
AmericanChopper 7y ago
There is no equivocation fallacy here at all. You have also failed to understand anything I’ve said. I’ve made no claims whatsoever about the likelihood of anything being true, not even any claims about the likelihood of anything being false. I’ve only asserted that it is impossible to prove any absolute truth. It seems you have taken this as some sort of insult to the merit of some truth that you must believe. Which I find highly ironic given the topic of this thread is the virtue of intellectual humility.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't cross into rudeness in HN threads. Also, please do religious flamewar somewhere else, not here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I’ll take your feedback on rudeness, but I never made any posts promoting or deriding any particular religion, or religion in general.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > I’ve only asserted that it is impossible to prove any absolute truth. No, you have also asserted that there is no way to distinguish different levels of justification for "non-absolute truths", or else your whole argument makes no sense. Which is also exactly what an equivocation fallacy is: Claiming that two things are the same because you can decide to ignore the differences.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I made no such assertion. I’m made no comments that attempted to ignore the differences that exist between different belief systems, nor made any comments that said you couldn’t qualitatively differentiate them. Simply that you can’t use the truth as the basis of that differentiation. All belief systems, whether they’re a belief in science as a source of truth, or a religion as a source of truth, are based on assertions that cannot be proven, and are therefor all equally unprovable. This is a perfectly rational equivalence, and doesn’t present a fallacy on any level. If you were more intellectually humble this might be easier for you to accept, but as it stands, you are no different from anybody else who chooses to reject the limits of their knowledge.

Yes, I am aware that you can use equivocation fallacies to explain that we can't know anything and all claims are equally likely to be true. I was talking about what a wise person would do, though.

dang 7y ago

Please don't cross into rudeness in HN threads. Also, please do religious flamewar somewhere else, not here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
Would you mind explaining what about my comment was either rude or a flame, given the context in which rationality was named as a sign of being unwise?
- dang 7y ago
  Any comment of the form, "Yes, I am aware that you can do stupid thing X, but I was talking about intelligent thing Y" is rude and a flame.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    ... when "stupid thing X" is making an argument that doesn't address the problem, and "you can do stupid thing X" is actually an explanation of what the problem with that argument is, and it's also not calling anyone names, but just calling out fallacious reasoning as what it is: Fallacious reasoning? Fallacious reasoning might well be correlated with stupidity, but that doesn't make pointing out fallacious reasoning an insult in itself. Equally, if the topic of the discussion is what makes a certain decision wise or not, as it happened to be the case here, I don't see how pointing out that a suggested methodology does not qualify due to fallacious reasoning in that methodology is either rude or a flame. That is, unless you consider the start of that discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20129547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20129547) a rude flame, which you possibly could, even though I don't think it was intended as such.
    - dang 7y ago
      I'm afraid I'm not really following this. In a way it doesn't matter, though, because even if I missed some subtlety in perceiving your comment as rude, I can guarantee you that most readers would miss that subtlety as well. Since there are plenty of ways to make your substantive points, why not just choose ones that don't straddle that line?

AmericanChopper 7y ago

There is no equivocation fallacy here at all. You have also failed to understand anything I’ve said. I’ve made no claims whatsoever about the likelihood of anything being true, not even any claims about the likelihood of anything being false. I’ve only asserted that it is impossible to prove any absolute truth. It seems you have taken this as some sort of insult to the merit of some truth that you must believe. Which I find highly ironic given the topic of this thread is the virtue of intellectual humility.

dang 7y ago
Please don't cross into rudeness in HN threads. Also, please do religious flamewar somewhere else, not here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I’ll take your feedback on rudeness, but I never made any posts promoting or deriding any particular religion, or religion in general.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> I’ve only asserted that it is impossible to prove any absolute truth. No, you have also asserted that there is no way to distinguish different levels of justification for "non-absolute truths", or else your whole argument makes no sense. Which is also exactly what an equivocation fallacy is: Claiming that two things are the same because you can decide to ignore the differences.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I made no such assertion. I’m made no comments that attempted to ignore the differences that exist between different belief systems, nor made any comments that said you couldn’t qualitatively differentiate them. Simply that you can’t use the truth as the basis of that differentiation. All belief systems, whether they’re a belief in science as a source of truth, or a religion as a source of truth, are based on assertions that cannot be proven, and are therefor all equally unprovable. This is a perfectly rational equivalence, and doesn’t present a fallacy on any level. If you were more intellectually humble this might be easier for you to accept, but as it stands, you are no different from anybody else who chooses to reject the limits of their knowledge.