6 ms·

Those two statements are not inconsistent. The first statement isn't a suggestion that implausible sounding ideas can be dismissed on the basis of a lack of cr

Those two statements are not inconsistent. The first statement isn't a suggestion that implausible sounding ideas can be dismissed on the basis of a lack of credibility of the person communicating the idea. But I share in the dislike of an appeal to authority. The idea should stand on its own merits.

Misdicorl 5y ago
Surely it is saying exactly that? Changing the "but" to "except" I think makes it clear without changing the intent
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  He's saying implausible sounding ideas should be dismissed because they are implausible, not because of the credibility of the person behind it. Then he makes one exception which is when the person is credible. That's different to saying that the idea should be dismissed merely due to lack of credibility of the person, which is what the second statement is talking about. The primary reason for dismissal in his first statement is the idea's implausibility, not the credibility of the person. If his first statement said "all ideas should be dismissed, but for ones proposed by credible people", then that would be inconsistent with his second statement.
  - Misdicorl 5y ago
    Wouldn't a criticism of the form "you have no idea what you're talking about here. You don't have credential x or experience y" satisfy both constraints? You've demonstrated the person does not have the necessary domain experience. And yet you've not addressed the idea at all and only the person who proposed it.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      It wouldn't because the way that is worded suggests that the reason for dismissal is the credibility of the person and not if the implausibility of the idea. What would follow from his first statement: "Your idea sounds really implausible, and so I'm going to dismiss it on that basis. And since you're not a domain expert I'm not going to put special effort into suspending judgement, I'm just going to go with my initial implausibility determination." What would follow from his second statement: "I'm going to dismiss your idea because you're not a domain expert. The idea's plausibility didn't really factor into my decision." I would agree though that his use of very simple language has left some ambiguity here.

Misdicorl 5y ago

Surely it is saying exactly that? Changing the "but" to "except" I think makes it clear without changing the intent

fighterpilot 5y ago
He's saying implausible sounding ideas should be dismissed because they are implausible, not because of the credibility of the person behind it. Then he makes one exception which is when the person is credible. That's different to saying that the idea should be dismissed merely due to lack of credibility of the person, which is what the second statement is talking about. The primary reason for dismissal in his first statement is the idea's implausibility, not the credibility of the person. If his first statement said "all ideas should be dismissed, but for ones proposed by credible people", then that would be inconsistent with his second statement.
- Misdicorl 5y ago
  Wouldn't a criticism of the form "you have no idea what you're talking about here. You don't have credential x or experience y" satisfy both constraints? You've demonstrated the person does not have the necessary domain experience. And yet you've not addressed the idea at all and only the person who proposed it.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    It wouldn't because the way that is worded suggests that the reason for dismissal is the credibility of the person and not if the implausibility of the idea. What would follow from his first statement: "Your idea sounds really implausible, and so I'm going to dismiss it on that basis. And since you're not a domain expert I'm not going to put special effort into suspending judgement, I'm just going to go with my initial implausibility determination." What would follow from his second statement: "I'm going to dismiss your idea because you're not a domain expert. The idea's plausibility didn't really factor into my decision." I would agree though that his use of very simple language has left some ambiguity here.