5 ms·

> I would like to begin by stressing how deeply miserable I am to be back on this beat. [...] Since people seem to love pointing out that Neoreaction a Basilisk

> I would like to begin by stressing how deeply miserable I am to be back on this beat. [...] Since people seem to love pointing out that Neoreaction a Basilisk does not actually talk about Scott Siskind, aka Scott Alexander, here’s another goddamn essay. The author certainly didn’t owe anyone another article, but it would be nice if there was a point to it beyond pointing out Scott’s obvious and consistent reluctance to reach falsifiable conclusions or express more than weakly held opinions. Isn’t all philosophical writing, good or bad, vague?

wpietri 6y ago
No. Bad philosophical writing is vague. Sometimes even good philosophical writing is difficult or murky, because the author is grappling with concepts novel enough that it's hard to find ways to express them. But the best is quite clear. As an example, read Frankfurt's "On Bullshit", which takes an under-examined topic and adds significant clarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit And there's definitely a point beyond what you claim. It's that Siskind is intentionally obscure because he's hiding something: low quality arguments leading to disturbing conclusions. And Siskind is quite aware that's he's intentionally hiding what he's up to. He's even admitted it privately: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001 https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001
- phnofive 6y ago
  Apologies for my brevity, but that was my point. The author’s foregone conclusion appears to be that since his conclusions are bad, so too must be his reasoning; rationalism is rhetorical by nature, so deconstructing it this way isn’t going to convince anyone who didn’t already agree. I’d love to see a takedown of some of those linked and earnest statements - though I suppose folks can be close-minded about “facts” as well (statistics can’t lie, right? /s)
  - WaltGisnep 6y ago
    >The author’s foregone conclusion appears to be that since his conclusions are bad, so too must be his reasoning I don't think that's accurate at all. She explicitly states that she's critiquing his reasoning and spends the vast majority of the essay doing that. Although it's worth pointing out that a conclusion being incorrect is good evidence for either the reasoning or the premises of an argument being incorrect.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      Exactly. The essay is quite specific about why the reasoning is bad. Sandifer's breakdown makes clear why I think Siskind's work is often in the category of "not even wrong". [1] To be wrong, one has to be clear, specific, and coherent. And I said, I don't think it's an accident that Siskind is murky. It serves his political purpose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
      - phnofive 6y ago
        I almost agree, but I thought being NEW excluded self-awareness, as that’s more of a Gish gallop (as mentioned in TFA). The problem with taking one of those on earnestly is as I mentioned in the neighbor.
        wpietri 6y ago
        I have no idea what "thought being NEW excluded self-awareness" could mean here, and I am equally befuddled by what you think is more of a Gish gallop, and am not confident you understand what one is.
        phnofive 6y ago
        I don’t think an author can ‘not even wrong’ intentionally - if it is intentional, then it would be something like a Gish gallop, which Sandifer describes another SSC essay as. I don’t necessarily agree, but I understand why she’d think so.

wpietri 6y ago

No. Bad philosophical writing is vague. Sometimes even good philosophical writing is difficult or murky, because the author is grappling with concepts novel enough that it's hard to find ways to express them. But the best is quite clear. As an example, read Frankfurt's "On Bullshit", which takes an under-examined topic and adds significant clarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit And there's definitely a point beyond what you claim. It's that Siskind is intentionally obscure because he's hiding something: low quality arguments leading to disturbing conclusions. And Siskind is quite aware that's he's intentionally hiding what he's up to. He's even admitted it privately: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001 https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001

phnofive 6y ago
Apologies for my brevity, but that was my point. The author’s foregone conclusion appears to be that since his conclusions are bad, so too must be his reasoning; rationalism is rhetorical by nature, so deconstructing it this way isn’t going to convince anyone who didn’t already agree. I’d love to see a takedown of some of those linked and earnest statements - though I suppose folks can be close-minded about “facts” as well (statistics can’t lie, right? /s)
- WaltGisnep 6y ago
  >The author’s foregone conclusion appears to be that since his conclusions are bad, so too must be his reasoning I don't think that's accurate at all. She explicitly states that she's critiquing his reasoning and spends the vast majority of the essay doing that. Although it's worth pointing out that a conclusion being incorrect is good evidence for either the reasoning or the premises of an argument being incorrect.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Exactly. The essay is quite specific about why the reasoning is bad. Sandifer's breakdown makes clear why I think Siskind's work is often in the category of "not even wrong". [1] To be wrong, one has to be clear, specific, and coherent. And I said, I don't think it's an accident that Siskind is murky. It serves his political purpose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
    - phnofive 6y ago
      I almost agree, but I thought being NEW excluded self-awareness, as that’s more of a Gish gallop (as mentioned in TFA). The problem with taking one of those on earnestly is as I mentioned in the neighbor.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        I have no idea what "thought being NEW excluded self-awareness" could mean here, and I am equally befuddled by what you think is more of a Gish gallop, and am not confident you understand what one is.
        phnofive 6y ago
        I don’t think an author can ‘not even wrong’ intentionally - if it is intentional, then it would be something like a Gish gallop, which Sandifer describes another SSC essay as. I don’t necessarily agree, but I understand why she’d think so.