3 ms·

It's an interesting experiment, but I've noticed something about many things we call "fallacious". They're not lies, they're just heuristics, which in fact, in

It's an interesting experiment, but I've noticed something about many things we call "fallacious". They're not lies, they're just heuristics, which in fact, in aggregate, help reach more correct conclusions sometimes. Say an argument from authority. Sure, some guy who digs dirt may know more about building skyscrapers than an architect who spend 40 years doing it. But, still? So in that context, I hope we start recognizing what fallacies are. They may not match standards of formal logic, but also if formal logic worked then we wouldn't need to grow artificial intelligence from noise, we'd instead feed it rational thought models and then it it comes up with flawless conclusions. Which is how we imagined AI for decades prior and all out attempts failed. They failed because formal models are highly restrictive and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

hullah3000 3y ago
Interesting point, for the argument from authority example you gave, it would be problematic if someone said "well I'm only going to listen to the architect about the structural integrity of the building, who's had 40 years experience over this novice <5YOE structural engineer who probably doesn't know what he's talking about" Another common example that I remember was back when I used to watch Sam Harris talk about religion, and he was always told that he could not criticize religion because he wasn't a theologist or an expert in the field! What I think is beautiful about our formal models is that it allows us to focus on the claims that are made, instead of who those claims are coming from! That allows us to get to truth better than if we didn't have this framework.