4 ms·
Falsifiability is about grounding out in an experiment that can be performed. Epistemic legibility is a generalization of the concept, where the arguer highligh
by khafra 5y ago
Falsifiability is about grounding out in an experiment that can be performed. Epistemic legibility is a generalization of the concept, where the arguer highlights the cruxes of potential disagreement, and points to whatever evidence they feel is convincing--whether that's experiments you can replicate, official records, expert opinions, or their own introspection.
- ganzuul 5y agoAh, refutable.
- DiggyJohnson 5y agoThis sort of arrogant, unapproachable response is exactly what the article is addressing. You are giving no space, no consideration at all, of someone disagreeing with you.
- ganzuul 5y agoWhat exactly do you think you are doing right now then?
- khafra 5y ago"Refutability" is a more general concept than epistemic legibility, in my opinion. One can (at least attempt) to refute abject nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything by saying "that's abject nonsense, that doesn't actually mean anything." Other arguments might depend on facts about the world, but attempt to hide those dependencies. A Gish Gallop is one such form of argument. These can be refuted, but the interlocutor has to do a lot of work to highlight the factual errors, and the reasons that the argument depends on them. An epistemically legible argument does that part of the work for the other party, so the only thing they must do is show which premises are wrong, or which logical dependencies are invalid. The pre-existing term I've heard that comes closest is the term with the opposite meaning, "Logical Rudeness." https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4317660/suber_rudeness.html?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4317660/suber_ru...