Welp, quite the shitshow there. Clicked a bunch of random threads and it seems pretty much awash with poor reasoning (well, they are libertarians, so obviously), trans and homophobia, thinly...
Welp, quite the shitshow there. Clicked a bunch of random threads and it seems pretty much awash with poor reasoning (well, they are libertarians, so obviously), trans and homophobia, thinly veiled anti-semitism, MRA nonsense, literal praise for Hitler and all the usual bullshit I'd expect from the "rational" right wing.
Much like LessWrong (which is at least way less crypto-fascist) it's kinda funny to see people with no background in philosophy trying to do philosophy. It's a bit like watching robots try to play football.
It's so sad that some people are learning to reject logical reasoning outright because right-wing assholes like these weaponize rational-sounding imposture.
It's so sad that some people are learning to reject logical reasoning outright because right-wing assholes like these weaponize rational-sounding imposture.
Literally opened that Culture War sticky and the top comment starts: Granted, the guy goes on to say that he views this development as very positive, but then immediately pivots, tagging a...
Literally opened that Culture War sticky and the top comment starts:
What changed in Western societies during the last century that lead to wide scale acceptance of non-white people?
Granted, the guy goes on to say that he views this development as very positive, but then immediately pivots, tagging a different user who apparently supports resegregation and asking them why they are pro-segregation...
Funnily enough I recall seeing a writeup from a philosopher boiling down to: "One of the major problems of modern mainstream philosophy is that it gives too much credence to already-accepted...
kinda funny to see people with no background in philosophy trying to do philosophy
Funnily enough I recall seeing a writeup from a philosopher boiling down to:
"One of the major problems of modern mainstream philosophy is that it gives too much credence to already-accepted mainstream philosophers."
That said, I feel Tildes does better amateur philosophy than this place.
I don't disagree with this at all. I don't think you need to spend years studying (especially Heidegger, nobody needs to read freakin' Heidegger) to be able to have reasoned, rational discussions...
"One of the major problems of modern mainstream philosophy is that it gives too much credence to already-accepted mainstream philosophers."
I don't disagree with this at all. I don't think you need to spend years studying (especially Heidegger, nobody needs to read freakin' Heidegger) to be able to have reasoned, rational discussions about the Nature of Things and Stuff. Plenty of people can, and tildes does so very well.
What themotte and LW and similar seem to be is more like some people who've read a cheatsheet of formal fallacies, skimmed the wikipedia page on "logic" and think they've got it all figured out as a result. It's like how you could learn the syntax of a programming language but that wouldn't teach you very much about how to actually program, and the code you produced would almost certainly be a complete mess. It might occasionally, almost by chance, give the expected result, but there's probably some serious structural problems underneath.
Yeah. Although you certainly don't need to read Heidegger to produce cogent arguments, when you take philosophical logic and apply it in a way that is decoupled from a basic understanding of its...
Yeah.
Although you certainly don't need to read Heidegger to produce cogent arguments, when you take philosophical logic and apply it in a way that is decoupled from a basic understanding of its place in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc, what you get is a bunch of lazy armchair "logicians" playing fallacy MTG...
Philosophical logic and its place in ethics.... What does that mean? In any case, most ethics systems are already wildly decoupled from each other, so it's certainly nothing new to have...
Philosophical logic and its place in ethics.... What does that mean?
In any case, most ethics systems are already wildly decoupled from each other, so it's certainly nothing new to have philosophical reasoning that doesn't touch ethics with a ten foot pole. Unless you have some shocking revelation about consciousness or the crystalization of knowledge you'd like to share.
Now that I'm at the computer, I look up some links you may find more satisfactory than any answer I can give. https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/logic-deontic/...
Philosophical logic and its place in ethics.... What does that mean?
Now that I'm at the computer, I look up some links you may find more satisfactory than any answer I can give.
Well, of course logic belongs outside of ethics, I only mentioned ethics as an example among other fields but not limited to them. Why did you think logic is circumscribed to ethics? I only...
Well, of course logic belongs outside of ethics, I only mentioned ethics as an example among other fields but not limited to them. Why did you think logic is circumscribed to ethics? I only answered about ethics because that's what you asked about.
Here's my quote:
in a way that is decoupled from a basic understanding of its place in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc
Generally speaking, whenever you're reading on logic as it applies to discourse (and sometimes when you aren't), you're reading philosophy. While there is great variation between schools and...
Generally speaking, whenever you're reading on logic as it applies to discourse (and sometimes when you aren't), you're reading philosophy.
While there is great variation between schools and countries of origin, there is no field in contemporary philosophy that does not uses logic as a one of its main tools. Which makes sense, since logic was largely created by someone that most people consider a philosopher.
I'm always surprised to realize how many people seem to ignore that logic is at the very core of how philosophy is created and structured today, as it has been since ancient times.
I'm guessing they meant contexts. Logics are like power tools that are necessary because the difficult philosophical problems require them, but trying to apply them onto everyday situations where...
I'm guessing they meant contexts. Logics are like power tools that are necessary because the difficult philosophical problems require them, but trying to apply them onto everyday situations where not necessary just makes you looks like a showoff.
Most philosophers take one or more courses on both formal and informal logic at the university as it is a central subject in the field, and also have an understanding on how to distinguish good...
Most philosophers take one or more courses on both formal and informal logic at the university as it is a central subject in the field, and also have an understanding on how to distinguish good from bad argumens. They generally have no need to employ symbolic logic in their to day lives (although many do), but that doesn't mean that whatever they write is not informed by logic principles.
You asked for clarification on the relationship between logic and ethics. I can't answer that specifically, so instead I said some things about the role of logic in philosophy as a whole, and...
You asked for clarification on the relationship between logic and ethics. I can't answer that specifically, so instead I said some things about the role of logic in philosophy as a whole, and ethics as a consequence.
Okay, now I understand the reasoning. I was wondering why logic was seemingly diminished to its role in other fields esp. ethics, in a way that I felt degraded it as it seemingly could not stand...
Okay, now I understand the reasoning. I was wondering why logic was seemingly diminished to its role in other fields
decoupled from a basic understanding of its place
esp. ethics, in a way that I felt degraded it as it seemingly could not stand alone, and wondered just what role you felt it had in this reduced capacity.
The key element is that I apparently missed was
apply it in a way that is decoupled from
until just now. Which clearly shows that you specifically don't like to see it applied outside of other applications, rather than that it should not exist alone.
And later in the comment chain, I think, that stance gets softened to include applications with the virtue of pure logic such as informing writing, so long as not done frivolously.
And in light of that important bit I missed, it makes sense to me that you would assume I was requesting clarification on the relationship with ethics. Total sense! Sorry for the hassle.
I feel that you overestimate both my knowledge and ability to express ideas over the internet. It seems that you place great importance to the precision of my language. That won't be very...
I feel that you overestimate both my knowledge and ability to express ideas over the internet.
It seems that you place great importance to the precision of my language. That won't be very productive. It's better to be charitable and simply assume that I meant the strongest form of the argument, otherwise we'll obsess over words and phrasing. This is a forum thread, I think you're expecting too much from me :P
mundane_and_naive's summary really is so good. It has taken me a lot of words to demonstrate why I needed this summary in the first place, all of which is rather unnecessary. Oops!
mundane_and_naive's summary really is so good. It has taken me a lot of words to demonstrate why I needed this summary in the first place, all of which is rather unnecessary. Oops!
I'm very sorry that my response was not satisfactory. I'm neither a philosopher nor an ethics scholar. I'm just a dude with an internet connection. Hopefully you'll forgive my ignorance :(
I'm very sorry that my response was not satisfactory. I'm neither a philosopher nor an ethics scholar. I'm just a dude with an internet connection. Hopefully you'll forgive my ignorance :(
I wasn't looking for an apology, I was trying to figure out what you were saying. And your response felt entirely removed from what I was puzzling over.
I wasn't looking for an apology, I was trying to figure out what you were saying. And your response felt entirely removed from what I was puzzling over.
Fun fact. The mods of /r/themotte were originally planning on using a forked version of Tildes for this separate site of theirs, but after fiddling with it for a few months they decided to use...
Fun fact. The mods of /r/themotte were originally planning on using a forked version of Tildes for this separate site of theirs, but after fiddling with it for a few months they decided to use something else instead.
TBH, I'm glad they ultimately decided against using the Tildes code though, since I don't think we would want to be associated with them in any way (nor should they be promoted here, IMO) due to the shit they regularly allow to be "debated" on their site. E.g. The transgender=mental illness and "scientific" racism bullshit, amongst other things.
Honestly they keep having "debates" on these things but nothing ever changes. It's just the same old arguments again and again which basically comes down to 1.) Claim/Assertion 2.) Nuh uh!/Right...
TBH, I'm glad they ultimately decided against using the Tildes code though, since I don't think we would want to be associated with them in any way (nor should they be promoted here, IMO) due to the shit they regularly allow to be "debated" on their site.
Honestly they keep having "debates" on these things but nothing ever changes. It's just the same old arguments again and again which basically comes down to
1.) Claim/Assertion
2.) Nuh uh!/Right on!
3.) Repeat
There's no new evidence brought to light. No references to studies or testimonies that might expand or elaborate on different conclusions. At best, it's reaction to some outrage bait in the news, which isn't "evidence" of anything.
I used to think there was some value in at least being aware of what people on different sides of issues think, but none of these people are actually intelligent or thoughtful. They just endlessly rehash memes of arguments. You get everything they have to say in 20 minutes of perusal and then it's just a firehose of different instantiations of those same main points over and over and over and over and over again. If anything interesting or new comes up it's too minor to break through the noise. I'm sure there's some sort of selective pressure that progressively evolves and adapts these talking points over time, but it'll be too slow and imperceptible to notice as it happens, much like evolution itself. Although the selection mechanism is truthiness, not truth, so it's not really improving anyone's understandings of anything.
Your point pretty much condenses my issues with all forms of internet arguments. I'm sure I've proselytized about my ideal internet debate format on here before, but I'll repeat it anyway. I'm...
Exemplary
Your point pretty much condenses my issues with all forms of internet arguments. I'm sure I've proselytized about my ideal internet debate format on here before, but I'll repeat it anyway. I'm pretty sure someone - was it deimos? - linked me to a platform that kinda attempts a similar thing, but that didn't do it to my satisfaction.
What I'm imagining is a intensely semantically annotated, collaborative rundown of every facet of an argument, ideally with hypertext-y links to related arguments. Think wikipedia, except for debates and not an encyclopedia. If I want to look at the debate of, say "pro nuclear advocacy is a threat to our emission goals", just to pick a less harmful, but still divisive argument, I'll be presented with the initial "pitch" for that argument: "Emission reductions will only materialize after two decades of planning and building, therefore greenlighting 20 years of fossil fuel based power generation". Then follows a line of arguments against that thesis, or against parts of that thesis. When you run into an issue that has been debated as part of a different thesis, you hyperlink that one. To better account for more ethics-based arguments (examples see this thread) instead of the engineering/science parts, you could ground out this proof tree at the leafs with "moral axioms". [1]
For example, when it comes to trans rights, a part of that argumentative structure might ultimately be justified with the moral axiom of "all human beings deserve the basic human rights of [...]". That statement isn't one that's up for debate; you accept it or not. Maybe you carve narrower or wider exceptions out. (ex: basic human right to freedom is restricted because of a crime the person committed) Now, you could enter the axioms you accept into this system, and it could hide(or mark) all arguments that collapse as a result. Meaning as a sane person, I don't even have to look at arguments that argue from a position of selectively restricting human rights. I can still find them, of course, if I want to inspect the conclusions of a proof tree, but they're not immediately in my face.
On the other hand, it seems possible to mark certain axioms for myself, and then find that one side of an argument completely collapses. Say, for example, that I indicate strong notions of human equality and universal human rights. If the proof tree then says that all anti-trans positions have collapsed in the face of those axioms and scientifically accepted evidence, then I would have to inspect my own anti-trans notions. Because either the proof tree is incomplete, or my own conclusion is in conflict with the axioms I purport to hold. Either I find a new argument (not a rehash of an old one), change my views, or accept cognitive dissonance.
For now, this is merely a incredibly abstract, theoretical dream of mine, that we could have debates in this form. The only way I can imagine this actually working to my satisfaction (i.e. removing redundant and irrelevant parts through programmatic understanding of the argument) is to enrich the actual argument with so much annotation as to make the program inaccessible to the general (non-tech) population. I know it's a very tech-bro solution.
Another option I had previously rejected as implausible is to mine this rich semantic structures using LLMs from the endless online arguments it aims to destroy. I think that's becoming more and more possible.
[1] To clarify the techbro lingo a bit here: The "proof tree" described the branching structure of an argument where every assertion could have multiple arguments supporting or attacking it. Eventually (I assert), every argument would end up arriving at unproveable statements that one just has to take for granted - the "leafs. There is no point in arguing fundamentally subjective beliefs, or at least there should be an acknowledgement that that argument would massively derail the overall argument. Therefore, every user would just mark which axioms they agree with. What axioms I agree with should of course be universal and not dependent on the argument at hand. The program would then mark sub-arguments as accepted or rejected, propagating all the way up the tree to the original thesis.
Are you referring to Kialo? It presents arguments in a tree view with nested claims and counterclaims. I don't know how well that actually works though, because a lot of more detailed arguments...
I'm pretty sure someone - was it deimos? - linked me to a platform that kinda attempts a similar thing, but that didn't do it to my satisfaction.
Are you referring to Kialo? It presents arguments in a tree view with nested claims and counterclaims.
I don't know how well that actually works though, because a lot of more detailed arguments require pretty detailed explanations. There's a reason philosophy treatises tend to be short papers or books rather than brief paragraphs. People will write entire dissertations about a single aspect of a claim and how it relates to everything else.
I've also begun to come around on the strict emphasis on logic alone not being the be-all-end-all of a discussion, especially on matters that aren't directly perceptible by the senses. There's a reason so much philosophy and ethics debates in pre-modern societies were formulated through plays, songs, or competitive poetry. A big part of the discussion in morality and ethics is to be honest with yourself about how it makes you feel to posit and make claims about certain things. You simply cannot remove purely emotive reactions, such as compassion or disgust, when discussing something like clitoridectomy for instance. Any attempt to do so is ignoring something key to understanding the topic.
I've certainly seen "not intelligent or thoughtful" before, but "not interesting" is a new reason for avoiding a group and I sort of like it. I don't feel interesting enough to be able to say it...
I've certainly seen "not intelligent or thoughtful" before, but "not interesting" is a new reason for avoiding a group and I sort of like it. I don't feel interesting enough to be able to say it seriously though.
Also, I guess I would be surprised if Tildes does not reiterate the same discussions and talking points over and over with little change. I've never paid too much attention to it, and since it passes the sniff test I'm not interested in doing an analysis. What do you think, is Tildes different? Or is it just imperceptible to us?
Some people do, but as a whole I think there is enough productive disagreement/tension to actually develop thoughts and ideas over time. I think this specific tendency I'm talking about is a...
Also, I guess I would be surprised if Tildes does not reiterate the same discussions and talking points over and over with little change.
Some people do, but as a whole I think there is enough productive disagreement/tension to actually develop thoughts and ideas over time. I think this specific tendency I'm talking about is a result of too many like-minded people clustering together and upvoting/promoting the ideas that sound right to them. It has a way of flattening out the range of perspectives. (Reddit has the same problem).
Honestly, it could be an interesting challenge to try to 'outlogic' them. If I had a lot more free time and patience to spare. But I wager they're largely just as dogmatic, especially if you...
Honestly, it could be an interesting challenge to try to 'outlogic' them. If I had a lot more free time and patience to spare.
But I wager they're largely just as dogmatic, especially if you disagree with their core tenants about taxes and effective altruism.
This used to be a subreddit that forked off r/slatestarcodex because Scott Alexander didn’t want the Culture War thread associated with his blog anymore. Looks like they’ve moved off Reddit...
This used to be a subreddit that forked off r/slatestarcodex because Scott Alexander didn’t want the Culture War thread associated with his blog anymore. Looks like they’ve moved off Reddit entirely.
Although it’s a spin-off, I wouldn’t call it Rationalist since this is where they sent people who wanted to discuss partisan politics in a more usual way (but often more politically incorrect) rather than having the sort of political discussions that Rationalists care about. (For example, discussing effective altruism or existential risks or AI. Those subjects have spilled into the mainstream now.)
I didn’t find The Motte worth reading. But if you’re curious, you can see a few of the more substantial posts linked from the “Quality Contributions report.” (It’s otherwise pretty hard to find anything interesting due to everything getting posted in megathreads that aren’t even divided up by subject, a legacy of when it was just the Culture War thread.)
This is a very active website. There are multiple posts with more than 1500 comments, some are 2000+. To my knowledge, no Reddit spin-off ever achieved those numbers. It is odd that it's seemingly...
This is a very active website. There are multiple posts with more than 1500 comments, some are 2000+. To my knowledge, no Reddit spin-off ever achieved those numbers. It is odd that it's seemingly flying under the radar.
Before the closed the subreddit, it was quite busy. Lots of comments were the norm. I occasionally perused it to see what "the other side" was talking about and looking for something that wasn't...
Before the closed the subreddit, it was quite busy. Lots of comments were the norm. I occasionally perused it to see what "the other side" was talking about and looking for something that wasn't ultra batshit insane MAGA-types like most of those places these days. It started off okay but then slowly got worse.
How have I not learned of The Motte, given its sizable user base? It feels like what Reddit used to be like circa early 2010 (for better or worse), when you could take part in a controversial...
How have I not learned of The Motte, given its sizable user base?
It feels like what Reddit used to be like circa early 2010 (for better or worse), when you could take part in a controversial discussion without the fear of being doxxed, having your account nuked from orbit, being banned from dozens of subreddits by an overzealous power user, a shadowban, or having toxic white supremacists derail the discussion.
Not stating that out of agreement with their views (i.e. modern day 'eugenics' has been repeatedly debunked as bullshit, so has the notion that vaccines cause autism), more out of astonishment that the discussion hasn't devolved into a shit-slinging contest like with every other 'free speech' platform that has tried to flourish in direct opposition to mainstream social media.
Certainly not a site I'd use. I want a more laissez-faire Reddit where the average user doesn't feel like they're walking on eggshells and has to avoid using words like "incel" to prevent Automoderator from swooping in and deleting their comment, not a place to discuss circa 1930's race science.
I have spent some time browsing /r/RedditAlternatives and have seen no mention of this place before now. Maybe it would be better if they didn't know because their site would descend into chaos so quickly from getting Reddit's attention...
EDIT: Someone from Tildes spilled the beans twelve hours ago. I feel sorry for the Motte's admins... I'd give it a few weeks until every comment is filled with slurs.
Looks like this site actually came from the culture war oriented subreddit of the same name spun off from the SSC sub. I haven't looked much into their site, but I was always put off by...
Looks like this site actually came from the culture war oriented subreddit of the same name spun off from the SSC sub.
I haven't looked much into their site, but I was always put off by the...enthusiasm, to say, that "HBD" inspired in the regulars of /r/themotte. Maybe that's changed since moving offsite, maybe it changed before then, it's been a while, I don't mean to throw stones. That's why I haven't checked out the site much, though.
Human biodiversity. The advocates of it are loosely interchangeable with "race realists", people who believe there is a large biological component in things like intelligence.
Human biodiversity. The advocates of it are loosely interchangeable with "race realists", people who believe there is a large biological component in things like intelligence.
So my understanding from the Slate Star Codex story is that... Scott Alexander (first and middle name) made a hardline rationalist and altruistic blog with a lot of controversial articles, then...
So my understanding from the Slate Star Codex story is that... Scott Alexander (first and middle name) made a hardline rationalist and altruistic blog with a lot of controversial articles, then had the New York Times threaten to dox him by leaking out his full name, because he foolishly published a few articles based on his SSC blog under his real name for the publication?
Then the Motte subreddit spun out from the SSC's Discord (because Discord's admins understandably got irked by the content being discussed on their platform), then the subreddit had threats of admin intervention, causing them to start their own site?
"Hardline rationalist" might be a slight overstatement, before he became more notable than Eliezer, SSC was always seen as the more moderate side of the movement. I'm not sure how the NYT verified...
"Hardline rationalist" might be a slight overstatement, before he became more notable than Eliezer, SSC was always seen as the more moderate side of the movement. I'm not sure how the NYT verified his identity, only that it had been an open secret in his community that he'd asked not to be discussed frequently.
I was under the impression that the Motte subreddit came directly out of the SSC sub's weekly culture war thread, but I might have missed a Discord stage. Other than those points, pretty accurate summary.
SSC spun out of the rationalist community (LessWrong), but unlike the rationalist community which focused mostly on AI and epistemology, SSC had a wider focus including politics and then gained a...
SSC spun out of the rationalist community (LessWrong), but unlike the rationalist community which focused mostly on AI and epistemology, SSC had a wider focus including politics and then gained a lot of followers outside of the rationalist community. I wouldn't describe the Motte as rationalist.
Welp, quite the shitshow there. Clicked a bunch of random threads and it seems pretty much awash with poor reasoning (well, they are libertarians, so obviously), trans and homophobia, thinly veiled anti-semitism, MRA nonsense, literal praise for Hitler and all the usual bullshit I'd expect from the "rational" right wing.
Much like LessWrong (which is at least way less crypto-fascist) it's kinda funny to see people with no background in philosophy trying to do philosophy. It's a bit like watching robots try to play football.
Welcome to the brave new world!
It's so sad that some people are learning to reject logical reasoning outright because right-wing assholes like these weaponize rational-sounding imposture.
Literally opened that Culture War sticky and the top comment starts:
Granted, the guy goes on to say that he views this development as very positive, but then immediately pivots, tagging a different user who apparently supports resegregation and asking them why they are pro-segregation...
Funnily enough I recall seeing a writeup from a philosopher boiling down to:
"One of the major problems of modern mainstream philosophy is that it gives too much credence to already-accepted mainstream philosophers."
That said, I feel Tildes does better amateur philosophy than this place.
I don't disagree with this at all. I don't think you need to spend years studying (especially Heidegger, nobody needs to read freakin' Heidegger) to be able to have reasoned, rational discussions about the Nature of Things and Stuff. Plenty of people can, and tildes does so very well.
What themotte and LW and similar seem to be is more like some people who've read a cheatsheet of formal fallacies, skimmed the wikipedia page on "logic" and think they've got it all figured out as a result. It's like how you could learn the syntax of a programming language but that wouldn't teach you very much about how to actually program, and the code you produced would almost certainly be a complete mess. It might occasionally, almost by chance, give the expected result, but there's probably some serious structural problems underneath.
Yeah.
Although you certainly don't need to read Heidegger to produce cogent arguments, when you take philosophical logic and apply it in a way that is decoupled from a basic understanding of its place in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc, what you get is a bunch of lazy armchair "logicians" playing fallacy MTG...
So cringe.
I genuinely laughed out loud at this. I'm going to remember that one.
Philosophical logic and its place in ethics.... What does that mean?
In any case, most ethics systems are already wildly decoupled from each other, so it's certainly nothing new to have philosophical reasoning that doesn't touch ethics with a ten foot pole. Unless you have some shocking revelation about consciousness or the crystalization of knowledge you'd like to share.
Now that I'm at the computer, I look up some links you may find more satisfactory than any answer I can give.
Well, of course logic belongs outside of ethics, I only mentioned ethics as an example among other fields but not limited to them. Why did you think logic is circumscribed to ethics? I only answered about ethics because that's what you asked about.
Here's my quote:
Generally speaking, whenever you're reading on logic as it applies to discourse (and sometimes when you aren't), you're reading philosophy.
While there is great variation between schools and countries of origin, there is no field in contemporary philosophy that does not uses logic as a one of its main tools. Which makes sense, since logic was largely created by someone that most people consider a philosopher.
I'm always surprised to realize how many people seem to ignore that logic is at the very core of how philosophy is created and structured today, as it has been since ancient times.
I'm guessing they meant contexts. Logics are like power tools that are necessary because the difficult philosophical problems require them, but trying to apply them onto everyday situations where not necessary just makes you looks like a showoff.
That is a great summary, thank you ;)
Most philosophers take one or more courses on both formal and informal logic at the university as it is a central subject in the field, and also have an understanding on how to distinguish good from bad argumens. They generally have no need to employ symbolic logic in their to day lives (although many do), but that doesn't mean that whatever they write is not informed by logic principles.
You asked for clarification on the relationship between logic and ethics. I can't answer that specifically, so instead I said some things about the role of logic in philosophy as a whole, and ethics as a consequence.
Okay, now I understand the reasoning. I was wondering why logic was seemingly diminished to its role in other fields
esp. ethics, in a way that I felt degraded it as it seemingly could not stand alone, and wondered just what role you felt it had in this reduced capacity.
The key element is that I apparently missed was
until just now. Which clearly shows that you specifically don't like to see it applied outside of other applications, rather than that it should not exist alone.
And later in the comment chain, I think, that stance gets softened to include applications with the virtue of pure logic such as informing writing, so long as not done frivolously.
And in light of that important bit I missed, it makes sense to me that you would assume I was requesting clarification on the relationship with ethics. Total sense! Sorry for the hassle.
I feel that you overestimate both my knowledge and ability to express ideas over the internet.
It seems that you place great importance to the precision of my language. That won't be very productive. It's better to be charitable and simply assume that I meant the strongest form of the argument, otherwise we'll obsess over words and phrasing. This is a forum thread, I think you're expecting too much from me :P
I'll try to keep that in mind. Not obsessing over words does not come easily to me unfortunately.
I understand, this is difficult for me as well ;)
mundane_and_naive's summary really is so good. It has taken me a lot of words to demonstrate why I needed this summary in the first place, all of which is rather unnecessary. Oops!
I'm very sorry that my response was not satisfactory. I'm neither a philosopher nor an ethics scholar. I'm just a dude with an internet connection. Hopefully you'll forgive my ignorance :(
I wasn't looking for an apology, I was trying to figure out what you were saying. And your response felt entirely removed from what I was puzzling over.
Fun fact. The mods of /r/themotte were originally planning on using a forked version of Tildes for this separate site of theirs, but after fiddling with it for a few months they decided to use something else instead.
TBH, I'm glad they ultimately decided against using the Tildes code though, since I don't think we would want to be associated with them in any way (nor should they be promoted here, IMO) due to the shit they regularly allow to be "debated" on their site. E.g. The transgender=mental illness and "scientific" racism bullshit, amongst other things.
Honestly they keep having "debates" on these things but nothing ever changes. It's just the same old arguments again and again which basically comes down to
1.) Claim/Assertion
2.) Nuh uh!/Right on!
3.) Repeat
There's no new evidence brought to light. No references to studies or testimonies that might expand or elaborate on different conclusions. At best, it's reaction to some outrage bait in the news, which isn't "evidence" of anything.
I used to think there was some value in at least being aware of what people on different sides of issues think, but none of these people are actually intelligent or thoughtful. They just endlessly rehash memes of arguments. You get everything they have to say in 20 minutes of perusal and then it's just a firehose of different instantiations of those same main points over and over and over and over and over again. If anything interesting or new comes up it's too minor to break through the noise. I'm sure there's some sort of selective pressure that progressively evolves and adapts these talking points over time, but it'll be too slow and imperceptible to notice as it happens, much like evolution itself. Although the selection mechanism is truthiness, not truth, so it's not really improving anyone's understandings of anything.
Your point pretty much condenses my issues with all forms of internet arguments. I'm sure I've proselytized about my ideal internet debate format on here before, but I'll repeat it anyway. I'm pretty sure someone - was it deimos? - linked me to a platform that kinda attempts a similar thing, but that didn't do it to my satisfaction.
What I'm imagining is a intensely semantically annotated, collaborative rundown of every facet of an argument, ideally with hypertext-y links to related arguments. Think wikipedia, except for debates and not an encyclopedia. If I want to look at the debate of, say "pro nuclear advocacy is a threat to our emission goals", just to pick a less harmful, but still divisive argument, I'll be presented with the initial "pitch" for that argument: "Emission reductions will only materialize after two decades of planning and building, therefore greenlighting 20 years of fossil fuel based power generation". Then follows a line of arguments against that thesis, or against parts of that thesis. When you run into an issue that has been debated as part of a different thesis, you hyperlink that one. To better account for more ethics-based arguments (examples see this thread) instead of the engineering/science parts, you could ground out this proof tree at the leafs with "moral axioms". [1]
For example, when it comes to trans rights, a part of that argumentative structure might ultimately be justified with the moral axiom of "all human beings deserve the basic human rights of [...]". That statement isn't one that's up for debate; you accept it or not. Maybe you carve narrower or wider exceptions out. (ex: basic human right to freedom is restricted because of a crime the person committed) Now, you could enter the axioms you accept into this system, and it could hide(or mark) all arguments that collapse as a result. Meaning as a sane person, I don't even have to look at arguments that argue from a position of selectively restricting human rights. I can still find them, of course, if I want to inspect the conclusions of a proof tree, but they're not immediately in my face.
On the other hand, it seems possible to mark certain axioms for myself, and then find that one side of an argument completely collapses. Say, for example, that I indicate strong notions of human equality and universal human rights. If the proof tree then says that all anti-trans positions have collapsed in the face of those axioms and scientifically accepted evidence, then I would have to inspect my own anti-trans notions. Because either the proof tree is incomplete, or my own conclusion is in conflict with the axioms I purport to hold. Either I find a new argument (not a rehash of an old one), change my views, or accept cognitive dissonance.
For now, this is merely a incredibly abstract, theoretical dream of mine, that we could have debates in this form. The only way I can imagine this actually working to my satisfaction (i.e. removing redundant and irrelevant parts through programmatic understanding of the argument) is to enrich the actual argument with so much annotation as to make the program inaccessible to the general (non-tech) population. I know it's a very tech-bro solution.
Another option I had previously rejected as implausible is to mine this rich semantic structures using LLMs from the endless online arguments it aims to destroy. I think that's becoming more and more possible.
[1] To clarify the techbro lingo a bit here: The "proof tree" described the branching structure of an argument where every assertion could have multiple arguments supporting or attacking it. Eventually (I assert), every argument would end up arriving at unproveable statements that one just has to take for granted - the "leafs. There is no point in arguing fundamentally subjective beliefs, or at least there should be an acknowledgement that that argument would massively derail the overall argument. Therefore, every user would just mark which axioms they agree with. What axioms I agree with should of course be universal and not dependent on the argument at hand. The program would then mark sub-arguments as accepted or rejected, propagating all the way up the tree to the original thesis.
Are you referring to Kialo? It presents arguments in a tree view with nested claims and counterclaims.
I don't know how well that actually works though, because a lot of more detailed arguments require pretty detailed explanations. There's a reason philosophy treatises tend to be short papers or books rather than brief paragraphs. People will write entire dissertations about a single aspect of a claim and how it relates to everything else.
I've also begun to come around on the strict emphasis on logic alone not being the be-all-end-all of a discussion, especially on matters that aren't directly perceptible by the senses. There's a reason so much philosophy and ethics debates in pre-modern societies were formulated through plays, songs, or competitive poetry. A big part of the discussion in morality and ethics is to be honest with yourself about how it makes you feel to posit and make claims about certain things. You simply cannot remove purely emotive reactions, such as compassion or disgust, when discussing something like clitoridectomy for instance. Any attempt to do so is ignoring something key to understanding the topic.
I've certainly seen "not intelligent or thoughtful" before, but "not interesting" is a new reason for avoiding a group and I sort of like it. I don't feel interesting enough to be able to say it seriously though.
Also, I guess I would be surprised if Tildes does not reiterate the same discussions and talking points over and over with little change. I've never paid too much attention to it, and since it passes the sniff test I'm not interested in doing an analysis. What do you think, is Tildes different? Or is it just imperceptible to us?
Some people do, but as a whole I think there is enough productive disagreement/tension to actually develop thoughts and ideas over time. I think this specific tendency I'm talking about is a result of too many like-minded people clustering together and upvoting/promoting the ideas that sound right to them. It has a way of flattening out the range of perspectives. (Reddit has the same problem).
Honestly, it could be an interesting challenge to try to 'outlogic' them. If I had a lot more free time and patience to spare.
But I wager they're largely just as dogmatic, especially if you disagree with their core tenants about taxes and effective altruism.
This used to be a subreddit that forked off r/slatestarcodex because Scott Alexander didn’t want the Culture War thread associated with his blog anymore. Looks like they’ve moved off Reddit entirely.
Although it’s a spin-off, I wouldn’t call it Rationalist since this is where they sent people who wanted to discuss partisan politics in a more usual way (but often more politically incorrect) rather than having the sort of political discussions that Rationalists care about. (For example, discussing effective altruism or existential risks or AI. Those subjects have spilled into the mainstream now.)
I didn’t find The Motte worth reading. But if you’re curious, you can see a few of the more substantial posts linked from the “Quality Contributions report.” (It’s otherwise pretty hard to find anything interesting due to everything getting posted in megathreads that aren’t even divided up by subject, a legacy of when it was just the Culture War thread.)
Hard pass. Too much conspiracy theory for my tastes.
Reminds me of me 20 years ago, in a bad way.
This is a very active website. There are multiple posts with more than 1500 comments, some are 2000+. To my knowledge, no Reddit spin-off ever achieved those numbers. It is odd that it's seemingly flying under the radar.
Before the closed the subreddit, it was quite busy. Lots of comments were the norm. I occasionally perused it to see what "the other side" was talking about and looking for something that wasn't ultra batshit insane MAGA-types like most of those places these days. It started off okay but then slowly got worse.
it was always a very active community, even when they were on reddit. they were a community and had a specific culture
How have I not learned of The Motte, given its sizable user base?
It feels like what Reddit used to be like circa early 2010 (for better or worse), when you could take part in a controversial discussion without the fear of being doxxed, having your account nuked from orbit, being banned from dozens of subreddits by an overzealous power user, a shadowban, or having toxic white supremacists derail the discussion.
Not stating that out of agreement with their views (i.e. modern day 'eugenics' has been repeatedly debunked as bullshit, so has the notion that vaccines cause autism), more out of astonishment that the discussion hasn't devolved into a shit-slinging contest like with every other 'free speech' platform that has tried to flourish in direct opposition to mainstream social media.
Certainly not a site I'd use. I want a more laissez-faire Reddit where the average user doesn't feel like they're walking on eggshells and has to avoid using words like "incel" to prevent Automoderator from swooping in and deleting their comment, not a place to discuss circa 1930's race science.
I have spent some time browsing /r/RedditAlternatives and have seen no mention of this place before now.
Maybe it would be better if they didn't know because their site would descend into chaos so quickly from getting Reddit's attention...EDIT: Someone from Tildes spilled the beans twelve hours ago. I feel sorry for the Motte's admins... I'd give it a few weeks until every comment is filled with slurs.
I actually found them via r/redditalternatives.
It reminds me a little of slate star codex subreddit. Someone should find a neat way to conclave our communities.
Looks like this site actually came from the culture war oriented subreddit of the same name spun off from the SSC sub.
I haven't looked much into their site, but I was always put off by the...enthusiasm, to say, that "HBD" inspired in the regulars of /r/themotte. Maybe that's changed since moving offsite, maybe it changed before then, it's been a while, I don't mean to throw stones. That's why I haven't checked out the site much, though.
What is “hbd”?
Human biodiversity. The advocates of it are loosely interchangeable with "race realists", people who believe there is a large biological component in things like intelligence.
So my understanding from the Slate Star Codex story is that... Scott Alexander (first and middle name) made a hardline rationalist and altruistic blog with a lot of controversial articles, then had the New York Times threaten to dox him by leaking out his full name, because he foolishly published a few articles based on his SSC blog under his real name for the publication?
Then the Motte subreddit spun out from the SSC's Discord (because Discord's admins understandably got irked by the content being discussed on their platform), then the subreddit had threats of admin intervention, causing them to start their own site?
"Hardline rationalist" might be a slight overstatement, before he became more notable than Eliezer, SSC was always seen as the more moderate side of the movement. I'm not sure how the NYT verified his identity, only that it had been an open secret in his community that he'd asked not to be discussed frequently.
I was under the impression that the Motte subreddit came directly out of the SSC sub's weekly culture war thread, but I might have missed a Discord stage. Other than those points, pretty accurate summary.
SSC spun out of the rationalist community (LessWrong), but unlike the rationalist community which focused mostly on AI and epistemology, SSC had a wider focus including politics and then gained a lot of followers outside of the rationalist community. I wouldn't describe the Motte as rationalist.