5 ms·

> The difficulty is that there is an entire class of people who don't even care about being logically correct or in finding truth. They desire or "feel" somethi

> The difficulty is that there is an entire class of people who don't even care about being logically correct or in finding truth. They desire or "feel" something and will barge their way through to get it, A malicious philosopher tells you that to move from point A to B, you must first pass through an infinite number of midpoints, and therefore motion is impossible. Do you: Invent/learn calculus to prove him wrong rigorously? Or do you walk away? For some few people, figuring out the matter rationally may bear a lot of fruit. But most people will be better served by walking away. For those people, wasting their time with rational arguments would be irrational. They have better things to do with their day. Irrational arguments can cut through solipsistic bullshit very fast and efficiently, and that makes them a valuable and productive tool for most people much of the time.

elefanten 4y ago
But not every appeal to logic comes from malicious philosophers. Most do not. So, in practice, you get a lot of lazy dismissals in service of selfish desires.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > But not every appeal to logic comes from malicious philosophers. Most do not. Whether it comes from a malicious philosopher or somebody who means well but is confused, it is generally prudent to consider whether the discussion is actually worth your time. I haven't met many philosophers actually pitching Zeno's paradoxes at people, but some I've encountered recently for real: reasons why Jesus is the means to salvation, why the Earth is flat, and why we're probably living in a simulation. I brush these aside without giving them serious responses, because I selfishly want to spend my time in other ways.
  - conqueso 4y ago
    That's not selfish - we only have so much time. The expectation that one should engage with everybody all the time will lead to misery. It's totally okay to say " no thanks, have a nice day" Edit: I realize your pointing out the prudence of an upfront decision of whether or not to engage means we probably agree here, I just consider the word selfish to be a bit harsh
    - bobthechef 4y ago
- brobdingnagians 4y ago
  Sometimes it is a quick occlusion algorithm; if we spent time evaluating every proposal we encountered, we would never get much done. Being able to quickly remove some arguments that our brain can quickly exclude (even when sometimes incorrectly) is a dramatic optimization. The key is training our brain to do it (mostly) correctly, like some kind of truth Bloom filter.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  In my experience they kinda do.
vkou 4y ago
> Irrational arguments can cut through solipsistic bullshit very fast and efficiently The problem with irrational arguments is that you can also cut your way straight into bullshit of any kind. And there's a lot more ways to be wrong than there are to be right.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  The problem with irrational arguments is that they're often a poor description of reality. And a poor description of reality can literally kill you and the people around you. (Covid denial, any number of addictions, climate catastrophe denial, and so on.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - xphx 4y ago
    Unfortunately that is also the problem with rational arguments if they are deliberately or ignorantly reductive, i.e. without holistic perspective.
zJlG 4y ago
> A malicious philosopher tells you that to move from point A to B, you must first pass through an infinite number of midpoints, and therefore motion is impossible. Easily countered by stating that the distance between adjacent points within this infinite set must be zero, so the total distance is zero and you can travel any distance instantaneously. Now the philosopher has to invent calculus to prove you wrong.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  These 2 comments are such keepers. Thanks both of you.
- MarcellusDrum 4y ago
  How do you prove both of these claims wrong, using calculus?
  - xigoi 4y ago
    Calculus explains how the sum of infinitely many infinitely small numbers can be any finite or infinite number, depending on how they are constructed.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    You don't. Calculus gives exact measurements of the situation in terms of math. But math is fiction, one of many descriptions of reality that we have invented. Other descriptions, many of them non-scientific, work equally well. I just threw a rock at your head. It hit your head. Therefore, motion is possible without math.
    - ArnoVW 4y ago
      Appeal to the stone fallacy! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
      - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
zasdffaa 4y ago
You draw 2 points on the floor, mark them as A and B, then walk from A to B in front of him.
- wcrossbow 4y ago
  Unfortunately, for certain people in certain situations even this won't do it.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    "My fist is a point A and your face is at point B. If you're correct, my right hook will never connect with your nose. Would you like to empirically test your hypothesis?" :)
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  That was just an evil demon deceiving him with a false illusion of the real world. It didn't actually happen.
dfxm12 4y ago
You're talking about a known "malicious philosopher". Is that shorthand for someone arguing in bad faith? I think most of the time, you don't know if you're talking with a "malicious" philosopher or not. Let's say in the course of a discussion with someone you don't know to be malicious, you feel they are setting up a strawman. Maybe they don't fully understand what you are saying, or maybe they are malicious and arguing in bad faith (or both). How do you determine this? Certainly not by saying "strawman!" at them (to tie this back to the article). Why is this important to me? I like to see if I'm communicating my ideas in a way most people can understand, so if it is just a misunderstanding, I know maybe I need to be more clear in what I say. I feel like if my arguments aren't clear, my other communication may not be clear, and that's important to me, professionally and personally. However, if they're just arguing in bad faith, well, then yeah I don't care and will walk away.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > Let's say in the course of a discussion with someone you don't know to be malicious, you feel they are setting up a strawman. Maybe they don't fully understand what you are saying, or maybe they are malicious and arguing in bad faith (or both). How do you determine this? Certainly not by saying "strawman!" at them (to tie this back to the article). You determine it by probing why the conversation is occurring in the first place. Whether a brusque "Why are we discussing this?" or a politer "My time is a bit short. Can you give me an idea of the goals for this discussion?" Or even "What would it mean for you to have this conversation?" There's nothing wrong with pointing out that you're not getting much benefit from the discussion.

elefanten 4y ago

But not every appeal to logic comes from malicious philosophers. Most do not. So, in practice, you get a lot of lazy dismissals in service of selfish desires.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> But not every appeal to logic comes from malicious philosophers. Most do not. Whether it comes from a malicious philosopher or somebody who means well but is confused, it is generally prudent to consider whether the discussion is actually worth your time. I haven't met many philosophers actually pitching Zeno's paradoxes at people, but some I've encountered recently for real: reasons why Jesus is the means to salvation, why the Earth is flat, and why we're probably living in a simulation. I brush these aside without giving them serious responses, because I selfishly want to spend my time in other ways.
- conqueso 4y ago
  That's not selfish - we only have so much time. The expectation that one should engage with everybody all the time will lead to misery. It's totally okay to say " no thanks, have a nice day" Edit: I realize your pointing out the prudence of an upfront decision of whether or not to engage means we probably agree here, I just consider the word selfish to be a bit harsh
  - bobthechef 4y ago
brobdingnagians 4y ago
Sometimes it is a quick occlusion algorithm; if we spent time evaluating every proposal we encountered, we would never get much done. Being able to quickly remove some arguments that our brain can quickly exclude (even when sometimes incorrectly) is a dramatic optimization. The key is training our brain to do it (mostly) correctly, like some kind of truth Bloom filter.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
In my experience they kinda do.

vkou 4y ago

> Irrational arguments can cut through solipsistic bullshit very fast and efficiently The problem with irrational arguments is that you can also cut your way straight into bullshit of any kind. And there's a lot more ways to be wrong than there are to be right.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
The problem with irrational arguments is that they're often a poor description of reality. And a poor description of reality can literally kill you and the people around you. (Covid denial, any number of addictions, climate catastrophe denial, and so on.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xphx 4y ago
  Unfortunately that is also the problem with rational arguments if they are deliberately or ignorantly reductive, i.e. without holistic perspective.

zJlG 4y ago

> A malicious philosopher tells you that to move from point A to B, you must first pass through an infinite number of midpoints, and therefore motion is impossible. Easily countered by stating that the distance between adjacent points within this infinite set must be zero, so the total distance is zero and you can travel any distance instantaneously. Now the philosopher has to invent calculus to prove you wrong.

Brian_K_White 4y ago
These 2 comments are such keepers. Thanks both of you.
MarcellusDrum 4y ago
How do you prove both of these claims wrong, using calculus?
- xigoi 4y ago
  Calculus explains how the sum of infinitely many infinitely small numbers can be any finite or infinite number, depending on how they are constructed.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  You don't. Calculus gives exact measurements of the situation in terms of math. But math is fiction, one of many descriptions of reality that we have invented. Other descriptions, many of them non-scientific, work equally well. I just threw a rock at your head. It hit your head. Therefore, motion is possible without math.
  - ArnoVW 4y ago
    Appeal to the stone fallacy! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
    - BeFlatXIII 4y ago

zasdffaa 4y ago

You draw 2 points on the floor, mark them as A and B, then walk from A to B in front of him.

wcrossbow 4y ago
Unfortunately, for certain people in certain situations even this won't do it.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  "My fist is a point A and your face is at point B. If you're correct, my right hook will never connect with your nose. Would you like to empirically test your hypothesis?" :)
_Algernon_ 4y ago
That was just an evil demon deceiving him with a false illusion of the real world. It didn't actually happen.

dfxm12 4y ago

You're talking about a known "malicious philosopher". Is that shorthand for someone arguing in bad faith? I think most of the time, you don't know if you're talking with a "malicious" philosopher or not. Let's say in the course of a discussion with someone you don't know to be malicious, you feel they are setting up a strawman. Maybe they don't fully understand what you are saying, or maybe they are malicious and arguing in bad faith (or both). How do you determine this? Certainly not by saying "strawman!" at them (to tie this back to the article). Why is this important to me? I like to see if I'm communicating my ideas in a way most people can understand, so if it is just a misunderstanding, I know maybe I need to be more clear in what I say. I feel like if my arguments aren't clear, my other communication may not be clear, and that's important to me, professionally and personally. However, if they're just arguing in bad faith, well, then yeah I don't care and will walk away.

BeetleB 4y ago
> Let's say in the course of a discussion with someone you don't know to be malicious, you feel they are setting up a strawman. Maybe they don't fully understand what you are saying, or maybe they are malicious and arguing in bad faith (or both). How do you determine this? Certainly not by saying "strawman!" at them (to tie this back to the article). You determine it by probing why the conversation is occurring in the first place. Whether a brusque "Why are we discussing this?" or a politer "My time is a bit short. Can you give me an idea of the goals for this discussion?" Or even "What would it mean for you to have this conversation?" There's nothing wrong with pointing out that you're not getting much benefit from the discussion.