3 ms·
> A reasonable, but not infallible heuristic for evaluating an essay for good faith, is to just imagine how much different the essay would look if counterargume
by isoskeles 6y ago
> A reasonable, but not infallible heuristic for evaluating an essay for good faith, is to just imagine how much different the essay would look if counterarguments could be inserted after reaching some threshold of support by the general population.
I'm not sure I follow what you mean here, and how this looks in either a good faith or bad faith presentation of some argument. Would 'good faith' be closer to an essay that presents its arguments in a somewhat neutral but supportive perspective (e.g. without lying or misleading), such that adding its counterarguments wouldn't almost convincingly disprove everything that was just written? Whereas a 'bad faith' argument with its counterarguments presented would look quite flimsy?
- ouid 6y agoA good faith argument looks less different from the imagined argument. It's a heuristic, peoples imaginations are different, but if you can tell that there are objections that people would have that haven't been addressed, it is likely the author could tell as well.