4 ms·

> Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most He has an established history of writin

by pdonis 3y ago

> Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most He has an established history of writing down detailed articles about arguments, yes. Unfortunately, a significant number of his articles contain schoolboy errors that anyone who wants to claim they are better at thinking through arguments than the average person should never have made. I'll mention just one such article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/01/empireforest-fire/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/01/empireforest-fire/ Scott says: "...democratic nations, like the US and UK, which have gone three hundred or so years with only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence (and those traces, like the camps for the Japanese during WWII, have not come from the Left)." The two obvious, egregious schoolboy errors here are: (1) Don't wars count as "state-sponsored violence"? The US and UK certainly haven't gone three hundred years without wars. And some of those wars were civil wars, so even the lame excuse of "well, wars are violence, but not against the state's own people" doesn't count. And even if we let that pass, what about the US's treatment of Native Americans? What about the UK's treatment of Ireland? And so on. To say that the US and UK have gone three hundred years with "only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence" shows a level of historical ignorance that is just staggering. (2) But even if we let all of the above pass: doesn't Scott know that the President who interned Japanese citizens in WWII was from the Left?

digital-cygnet 3y ago
While Scott does make errors, I've found he works hard to avoid making them and forthright when he does (e.g., not everyone has a Mistakes page in the main navigation bar of their site[1]) What you're missing in your example is that, in context, the state-sponsored violence he's talking about is "against one's own people" (e.g., he also refers to it as a "reign of terror" a few times, like those of Robespierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc). I think there's a difference of kind between say the 19th century US's (awful) treatment of Native Americans (who were explicitly treated as "other" very consistently) and Stalin's (also awful) dekulakization (in which one-time typical members of Russian society were declared enemies of the state and purged). So his point isn't that the UK and US have done no wrong, it's that despite having democratic systems for centuries that haven't gone through the kind of reign of terror that Scott's interlocutors claim they should have [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes
- pdonis 3y ago
  > he works hard to avoid making them He does so when he sees that there is a potential mistake to be made, yes. But he doesn't seem to me to work hard at all at questioning things that he appears to think are too obvious to need questioning. And yet those things are where he makes the egregious mistakes. > forthright when he does Yes, I agree with this: once he recognizes he's made a mistake, he's much better than most at acknowledging it. > What you're missing in your example is that, in context, the state-sponsored violence he's talking about is "against one's own people" I don't buy the hairsplitting distinction he's making there, but even leaving that aside, I already addressed this point in my post. The UK fought a war against its own people in the American Revolution. The US fought a war against its own people in the US Civil War. The US fought against Native Americans. The UK fought against Ireland. And so on. > I think there's a difference of kind I think this is even more of a hairsplitting distinction that I don't buy. But again, leaving that aside, if Scott wanted to make an argument for such a difference in kind, he should have made one. Just taking it as so obvious as not to need any argument is not justified. And the need for making such an argument doesn't even seem to be on Scott's radar. I find that either astoundingly obtuse, or astoundingly disingenuous.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    I agree with you, and I think this is a recurring flaw you'll see in Rationalist communities: they love smart, Rationalist, Just So stories ("X can be explained by Y", never mind whether that explanation is actually correct...and best not mention it if you want to be an upstanding member of the community).
- pdonis 3y ago
  Btw, I noticed another egregious error: "France, where a reign of terror five years after the Bourbon monarchy is clearly contrasted with a hundred fifty terror-free years since it became democratic in 1870." Um, what? France is now on its Fifth republic, and the transitions haven't always been peaceful. Not to mention Indochina, Algeria (France's own leaders explicitly described what the French did to subdue Algeria as "terrorism"), etc. And many of the people who were terrorized in Algeria were French citizens.
hindsightbias 3y ago
> the Left? You mean the GOPs modern definition of a leftist, or the vast majority of the times definition of a leftist? https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Norman_Thomas/ https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Norman_Thomas/
- pdonis 3y ago
  The Democratic party in the US, at least since Woodrow Wilson, has been on the Left. I don't think that is a matter of any serious dispute.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. Their actual policies when in power are even further from those of leftist parties worldwide. So .. are they left of the US Republican Party? No question. Are they "on the left" in any broader sense? That depends very much on your conception of the nature and scope of the political space. For most people in most parts of the world, the US Democratic Party is a completely centrist party that would never be termed "leftist".
    - hindsightbias 3y ago
      Americans have little knowledge of their history, can't imagine an era when there were actual socialists, marxists, communists, fascists and literal nazis in uniforms holding conventions in NYC. All choices must be binary.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. Ah, that old standby "No True Scotsman". Sorry, not buying it. > The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. No political party's stated policies can be taken seriously, since political parties, on immense amounts of historical evidence, will lie about their actual goals as much as they need to to get elected and stay elected. For example, the Democratic platform that FDR ran on in 1932 did not look very leftist, but the actual things he did once in office were most definitely leftist, and bore no resemblance whatever to the platform he ran on. Did any Democrats object? Hollow laugh. If you want to argue that the US Democratic party is not as far left as, for example, leftist parties in the UK or Europe, yes, that's probably true. But saying that that means the US Democratic party is not leftist is like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is not an ocean because it doesn't have quite as much water in it as the Pacific.
helicalmix 3y ago
Have you considered that it's possible that both you and Scott are particular good at reasoning, and it's everyone else that is much worse at this stuff? You're pointing out a bunch of errors, but it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made). I would also venture to guess that the average educated person would make much more egregious mistakes.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made) If this is the case, IMO it's more a reflection of the awfulness of the schooling in our time than anything else. No schoolboy in the US of a century ago would have made such egregious historical errors, because they would have been taught some actual history instead of what students in the US today get taught.
  - helicalmix 3y ago
    My tongue in cheek response is that you are correct, because a century ago, WWII didn't happen yet. Can you provably demonstrate that education quality was better a century ago? I'm not outright trying to refute you, so much as I have a belief that people tend to overstate the "good old days", so I usually prefer more concrete data points.
naasking 3y ago
> To say that the US and UK have gone three hundred years with "only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence" shows a level of historical ignorance that is just staggering Scott is not ignorant, therefore it seems more plausible that you should reconsider whether Scott is making the point that you think he's making.

by pdonis 3y ago

digital-cygnet 3y ago

While Scott does make errors, I've found he works hard to avoid making them and forthright when he does (e.g., not everyone has a Mistakes page in the main navigation bar of their site[1]) What you're missing in your example is that, in context, the state-sponsored violence he's talking about is "against one's own people" (e.g., he also refers to it as a "reign of terror" a few times, like those of Robespierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc). I think there's a difference of kind between say the 19th century US's (awful) treatment of Native Americans (who were explicitly treated as "other" very consistently) and Stalin's (also awful) dekulakization (in which one-time typical members of Russian society were declared enemies of the state and purged). So his point isn't that the UK and US have done no wrong, it's that despite having democratic systems for centuries that haven't gone through the kind of reign of terror that Scott's interlocutors claim they should have [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes

pdonis 3y ago
> he works hard to avoid making them He does so when he sees that there is a potential mistake to be made, yes. But he doesn't seem to me to work hard at all at questioning things that he appears to think are too obvious to need questioning. And yet those things are where he makes the egregious mistakes. > forthright when he does Yes, I agree with this: once he recognizes he's made a mistake, he's much better than most at acknowledging it. > What you're missing in your example is that, in context, the state-sponsored violence he's talking about is "against one's own people" I don't buy the hairsplitting distinction he's making there, but even leaving that aside, I already addressed this point in my post. The UK fought a war against its own people in the American Revolution. The US fought a war against its own people in the US Civil War. The US fought against Native Americans. The UK fought against Ireland. And so on. > I think there's a difference of kind I think this is even more of a hairsplitting distinction that I don't buy. But again, leaving that aside, if Scott wanted to make an argument for such a difference in kind, he should have made one. Just taking it as so obvious as not to need any argument is not justified. And the need for making such an argument doesn't even seem to be on Scott's radar. I find that either astoundingly obtuse, or astoundingly disingenuous.
- mistermann 3y ago
  I agree with you, and I think this is a recurring flaw you'll see in Rationalist communities: they love smart, Rationalist, Just So stories ("X can be explained by Y", never mind whether that explanation is actually correct...and best not mention it if you want to be an upstanding member of the community).
pdonis 3y ago
Btw, I noticed another egregious error: "France, where a reign of terror five years after the Bourbon monarchy is clearly contrasted with a hundred fifty terror-free years since it became democratic in 1870." Um, what? France is now on its Fifth republic, and the transitions haven't always been peaceful. Not to mention Indochina, Algeria (France's own leaders explicitly described what the French did to subdue Algeria as "terrorism"), etc. And many of the people who were terrorized in Algeria were French citizens.

hindsightbias 3y ago

> the Left? You mean the GOPs modern definition of a leftist, or the vast majority of the times definition of a leftist? https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Norman_Thomas/ https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Norman_Thomas/

pdonis 3y ago
The Democratic party in the US, at least since Woodrow Wilson, has been on the Left. I don't think that is a matter of any serious dispute.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. Their actual policies when in power are even further from those of leftist parties worldwide. So .. are they left of the US Republican Party? No question. Are they "on the left" in any broader sense? That depends very much on your conception of the nature and scope of the political space. For most people in most parts of the world, the US Democratic Party is a completely centrist party that would never be termed "leftist".
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    Americans have little knowledge of their history, can't imagine an era when there were actual socialists, marxists, communists, fascists and literal nazis in uniforms holding conventions in NYC. All choices must be binary.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > It's a matter of very serious dispute if you were to read people who are actually on the left, or who live outside the USA. Ah, that old standby "No True Scotsman". Sorry, not buying it. > The stated policies of the US Democratic Party barely correspond to those of leftist parties worldwide. No political party's stated policies can be taken seriously, since political parties, on immense amounts of historical evidence, will lie about their actual goals as much as they need to to get elected and stay elected. For example, the Democratic platform that FDR ran on in 1932 did not look very leftist, but the actual things he did once in office were most definitely leftist, and bore no resemblance whatever to the platform he ran on. Did any Democrats object? Hollow laugh. If you want to argue that the US Democratic party is not as far left as, for example, leftist parties in the UK or Europe, yes, that's probably true. But saying that that means the US Democratic party is not leftist is like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is not an ocean because it doesn't have quite as much water in it as the Pacific.

helicalmix 3y ago

Have you considered that it's possible that both you and Scott are particular good at reasoning, and it's everyone else that is much worse at this stuff? You're pointing out a bunch of errors, but it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made). I would also venture to guess that the average educated person would make much more egregious mistakes.

pdonis 3y ago
> it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made) If this is the case, IMO it's more a reflection of the awfulness of the schooling in our time than anything else. No schoolboy in the US of a century ago would have made such egregious historical errors, because they would have been taught some actual history instead of what students in the US today get taught.
- helicalmix 3y ago
  My tongue in cheek response is that you are correct, because a century ago, WWII didn't happen yet. Can you provably demonstrate that education quality was better a century ago? I'm not outright trying to refute you, so much as I have a belief that people tend to overstate the "good old days", so I usually prefer more concrete data points.

naasking 3y ago

> To say that the US and UK have gone three hundred years with "only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence" shows a level of historical ignorance that is just staggering Scott is not ignorant, therefore it seems more plausible that you should reconsider whether Scott is making the point that you think he's making.