3 ms·

Superbly written and argued. Assessing an argument's Epistemic Legibility is a new tool in my toolbox for identifying weak arguments. > I expect having a handl

Superbly written and argued. Assessing an argument's Epistemic Legibility is a new tool in my toolbox for identifying weak arguments. > I expect having a handle with which to say “no I don’t have a concise argument about why this work is wrong, and that’s a fact about the work” to be very useful. This was my favorite quote from the article

awb 5y ago
I’ve seen “Source?” used as a concise critique against what I consider to be epistemically illegible arguments.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Yeah, but P(Valid Critique | Source) is low. For instance, behold as I use it illegitimately against you: "Would you mind linking to where you've seen this use of 'Source?'?" Besides, legibility is about the argument - it doesn't make sense to talk about a "Source". The source is me. I am the one making the argument. Statements of fact aren't arguments. "There is a giant octopus besieging NYC right now". There's no argument there. It is merely a statement. An example legible argument is: - There is likely a lot of squid ink covering NYC - This is likely because there is a positively colossal squid creature floating above NYC at the moment - Squid creatures (colossal or otherwise) discharge ink when attacked - We are attacking this humongous monstrosity In fact, "Source?" works better against a legible argument since you can identify which part needs the extra stuff. This argument is fairly legible and is practically just syllogisms. It's merely the case that a premise is wrong - something which you can conclude by asking for the source for a crucial premise. With an illegible argument, you could debunk the source of one of the claims and still be unable to trace its impact on the conclusion. For instance: It's probably raining in NYC right now because it's kind of the conditions that would cause rain if you know what I mean. But there's also this squid creature in the air. It rains when there's squids. Here, read this article about colossal squid ink rain. We all know that squid rain is a thing.

awb 5y ago

I’ve seen “Source?” used as a concise critique against what I consider to be epistemically illegible arguments.

renewiltord 5y ago
Yeah, but P(Valid Critique | Source) is low. For instance, behold as I use it illegitimately against you: "Would you mind linking to where you've seen this use of 'Source?'?" Besides, legibility is about the argument - it doesn't make sense to talk about a "Source". The source is me. I am the one making the argument. Statements of fact aren't arguments. "There is a giant octopus besieging NYC right now". There's no argument there. It is merely a statement. An example legible argument is: - There is likely a lot of squid ink covering NYC - This is likely because there is a positively colossal squid creature floating above NYC at the moment - Squid creatures (colossal or otherwise) discharge ink when attacked - We are attacking this humongous monstrosity In fact, "Source?" works better against a legible argument since you can identify which part needs the extra stuff. This argument is fairly legible and is practically just syllogisms. It's merely the case that a premise is wrong - something which you can conclude by asking for the source for a crucial premise. With an illegible argument, you could debunk the source of one of the claims and still be unable to trace its impact on the conclusion. For instance: It's probably raining in NYC right now because it's kind of the conditions that would cause rain if you know what I mean. But there's also this squid creature in the air. It rains when there's squids. Here, read this article about colossal squid ink rain. We all know that squid rain is a thing.