Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

[thompnickson2]

Glen, n all,

I actually read most of this before I am passing it on to you, a new record for me.  It relates to Wing Nuts. https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.html

I found it interesting because it relates to an attempt to state the minimum conditions for a productive dialogue between people who disagree. 

So these folks meet the first two.

1. A commitment to logic.  Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right?
2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them.

They fail on the third criterion:

3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an honest attempt to Steelman (sensu Ropellae) the other guy’s argument.

Nick

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

When you say "these folks", I'm guessing you mean Worrall and the commenters, not Sou, Lewandowsky, et al. Correct?

As for the 3 criteria, I completely reject your *implied* inference in (1). A commitment to logic does not imply a commitment to the Law of Non-contradiction. There are plenty of logics that don't obey that axiom. I've tried a number of times to introduce paraconsistent logic and inconsistency tolerance techniques (which are ubiquitous in modern IT systems).

And while I agree, in principle, with your (3), my recent posts poking at the false dichotomy between ad hominem and character assessment (or the previous ones on "credibility") aren't reflected in it. For me, personally, I *must* allow contempt-speech and disrespectful dialogue because the people I care most about dialoguing with are VERY sensitive people, triggered at the smallest mis-spoken phrase or line of argument. So, when I mis-speak, they react ... sometimes even with violence. If I considered that a condition to rule them out for any (future) productive dialogue, I'd be a very lonely person. 8^D

In summary, I find only (2) is necessary for productive dialogue ... and even there I can argue about the conceptions of "fact" and "desire". Such rule-based ethics will fail you in an open universe. >8^D

But it's a great post. Thanks! I'll probably read that main paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6


On 11/25/20 10:46 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I actually read most of this before I am passing it on to you, a new record for me.  It relates to Wing Nuts. https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.html <https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.html>
>
> I found it interesting because it relates to an attempt to state the minimum conditions for a productive dialogue between people who disagree. 
>
> So these folks meet the first two.
>
>  1. A commitment to logic.  Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right?
>  2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them.
>
> They fail on the third criterion:
>
>  3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an honest attempt to Steelman (/sensu Ropellae) /the other guy’s argument.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Can we extend the "dialogue" to include violence?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 11:52 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

When you say "these folks", I'm guessing you mean Worrall and the commenters, not Sou, Lewandowsky, et al. Correct?

As for the 3 criteria, I completely reject your *implied* inference in (1). A commitment to logic does not imply a commitment to the Law of Non-contradiction. There are plenty of logics that don't obey that axiom. I've tried a number of times to introduce paraconsistent logic and inconsistency tolerance techniques (which are ubiquitous in modern IT systems).

And while I agree, in principle, with your (3), my recent posts poking at the false dichotomy between ad hominem and character assessment (or the previous ones on "credibility") aren't reflected in it. For me, personally, I *must* allow contempt-speech and disrespectful dialogue because the people I care most about dialoguing with are VERY sensitive people, triggered at the smallest mis-spoken phrase or line of argument. So, when I mis-speak, they react ... sometimes even with violence. If I considered that a condition to rule them out for any (future) productive dialogue, I'd be a very lonely person. 8^D

In summary, I find only (2) is necessary for productive dialogue ... and even there I can argue about the conceptions of "fact" and "desire". Such rule-based ethics will fail you in an open universe. >8^D

But it's a great post. Thanks! I'll probably read that main paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6


On 11/25/20 10:46 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I actually read most of this before I am passing it on to you, a new
> record for me.  It relates to Wing Nuts.
> https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.ht
> ml
> <https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.h
> tml>
>
> I found it interesting because it relates to an attempt to state the
> minimum conditions for a productive dialogue between people who disagree.
>
> So these folks meet the first two.
>
>  1. A commitment to logic.  Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right?
>  2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them.
>
> They fail on the third criterion:
>
>  3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an honest attempt to Steelman (/sensu Ropellae) /the other guy’s argument.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

Glen,
Yes, the authors of the critique.

To your first point, I never stipulated any particular logic.  Perhaps I should just put it this way: before we can argue fruitfully, we have to agree on a mode of argument, and failure to follow a set of rules does not make on a bad person, it just means that until we agree on a new set of rules, we can't argue any more.  

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:52 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

When you say "these folks", I'm guessing you mean Worrall and the commenters, not Sou, Lewandowsky, et al. Correct?

As for the 3 criteria, I completely reject your *implied* inference in (1). A commitment to logic does not imply a commitment to the Law of Non-contradiction. There are plenty of logics that don't obey that axiom. I've tried a number of times to introduce paraconsistent logic and inconsistency tolerance techniques (which are ubiquitous in modern IT systems).

And while I agree, in principle, with your (3), my recent posts poking at the false dichotomy between ad hominem and character assessment (or the previous ones on "credibility") aren't reflected in it. For me, personally, I *must* allow contempt-speech and disrespectful dialogue because the people I care most about dialoguing with are VERY sensitive people, triggered at the smallest mis-spoken phrase or line of argument. So, when I mis-speak, they react ... sometimes even with violence. If I considered that a condition to rule them out for any (future) productive dialogue, I'd be a very lonely person. 8^D

In summary, I find only (2) is necessary for productive dialogue ... and even there I can argue about the conceptions of "fact" and "desire". Such rule-based ethics will fail you in an open universe. >8^D

But it's a great post. Thanks! I'll probably read that main paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6


On 11/25/20 10:46 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I actually read most of this before I am passing it on to you, a new
> record for me.  It relates to Wing Nuts.
> https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.ht
> ml
> <https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.h
> tml>
>
> I found it interesting because it relates to an attempt to state the
> minimum conditions for a productive dialogue between people who disagree.
>
> So these folks meet the first two.
>
>  1. A commitment to logic.  Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right?
>  2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them.
>
> They fail on the third criterion:
>
>  3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an honest attempt to Steelman (/sensu Ropellae) /the other guy’s argument.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Of course. If we agree that all thought is (miniature) action, then microviolence like using a racial slur is only distinct from macroviolence like sucker punching Nazis as a difference of degree. If Richard Spencer did NOT take getting punched in the face as a rejection of his arguments, then he should seriously rethink his conception of what it means to make an argument.

That implies, given that some violence is illegal and other violence is legal, the delivery of counter-arguments has to be deliberate ... think before you formulate your argument-violence. What type of person will be receiving your argument-violence, and will they be receptive to it? Similarly, when you receive a bit of argument-violence, think about the sender and what message it contains. Did they deliver that argument-violence deliberately?

Only *iteration* can reveal these things. So, you can't abort the dialogue simply because you don't like the form it takes ... or, well, you can abort it, I guess, if you want to remain ignorant.

On 11/25/20 12:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Can we extend the "dialogue" to include violence?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

No, I disagree again. You're relying on the ambiguity in the word "agree". One of the methods people like deniers and conspiracy nuts rely on is their perfectly valid ability to *change* what anything means on the fly. Indeed, if we *disallowed* them that ability, then we lose anyone's ability to change their mind.

Consistency hobgoblins want to write everything in stone, mainly so they can WIN the argument, which simply means demonstrate their brilliance and dominate the world. Agreement, in your sense, is the fixing-in-stone of some part of the algebra, the language, so that the wiggle (slop and flex) we *need* in order to change minds is eliminated. Such pre-fruitful-agreement locks the discussants into a zero sum game they'll have to fight to win or otherwise be humiliated.

We can argue over and over again without fixing the rules in stone. I'd argue we must argue over and over again without fixing such rules. And those who insist on fixing the rules should be left out of the dialogue.

On 11/25/20 12:03 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> To your first point, I never stipulated any particular logic.  Perhaps I should just put it this way: before we can argue fruitfully, we have to agree on a mode of argument, and failure to follow a set of rules does not make on a bad person, it just means that until we agree on a new set of rules, we can't argue any more.
--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Macroviolence like Nagasaki may still be intended to "communicate", but it also aims to vanquish.  Earlier you said that "But it's Evil to insist you've learned all you need to know about some or another subject."  So it would be Evil to vanquish such an adversary?   There's always more to know about them, of course.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 12:22 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

Of course. If we agree that all thought is (miniature) action, then microviolence like using a racial slur is only distinct from macroviolence like sucker punching Nazis as a difference of degree. If Richard Spencer did NOT take getting punched in the face as a rejection of his arguments, then he should seriously rethink his conception of what it means to make an argument.

That implies, given that some violence is illegal and other violence is legal, the delivery of counter-arguments has to be deliberate ... think before you formulate your argument-violence. What type of person will be receiving your argument-violence, and will they be receptive to it? Similarly, when you receive a bit of argument-violence, think about the sender and what message it contains. Did they deliver that argument-violence deliberately?

Only *iteration* can reveal these things. So, you can't abort the dialogue simply because you don't like the form it takes ... or, well, you can abort it, I guess, if you want to remain ignorant.

On 11/25/20 12:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Can we extend the "dialogue" to include violence?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

Glen,  

Thou strawmanest me!

If I am guilty of tautology it is believing that an argument is the offering of facts and logic (of some sort) in the hope of changing another's mind, or even receiving counter arguments that will change one's own.

Ach!  My w and my  two key have gone funny.  I am reduced to finding a w in another document and then pasting it in here.  Since the two keys are next to one another, I suspect a smurgle under the keyboard.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 2:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

No, I disagree again. You're relying on the ambiguity in the word "agree". One of the methods people like deniers and conspiracy nuts rely on is their perfectly valid ability to *change* what anything means on the fly. Indeed, if we *disallowed* them that ability, then we lose anyone's ability to change their mind.

Consistency hobgoblins want to write everything in stone, mainly so they can WIN the argument, which simply means demonstrate their brilliance and dominate the world. Agreement, in your sense, is the fixing-in-stone of some part of the algebra, the language, so that the wiggle (slop and flex) we *need* in order to change minds is eliminated. Such pre-fruitful-agreement locks the discussants into a zero sum game they'll have to fight to win or otherwise be humiliated.

We can argue over and over again without fixing the rules in stone. I'd argue we must argue over and over again without fixing such rules. And those who insist on fixing the rules should be left out of the dialogue.

On 11/25/20 12:03 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> To your first point, I never stipulated any particular logic.  Perhaps I should just put it this way: before we can argue fruitfully, we have to agree on a mode of argument, and failure to follow a set of rules does not make on a bad person, it just means that until we agree on a new set of rules, we can't argue any more.
--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Yes. Nuking a city is Evil, just in case that needs saying.

On November 25, 2020 2:01:01 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Macroviolence like Nagasaki may still be intended to "communicate", but
>it also aims to vanquish.  Earlier you said that "But it's Evil to
>insist you've learned all you need to know about some or another
>subject."  So it would be Evil to vanquish such an adversary?   There's
>always more to know about them, of course.  

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Well, at least we got rid of requirement #3. But I maintain that your requirement for logic is too ambiguous to defend. So if you'd drop that, we'd agree that "facts" are the only requirement for productive dialogue.


On November 25, 2020 4:11:33 PM PST, [hidden email] wrote:
>Thou strawmanest me!
>
>If I am guilty of tautology it is believing that an argument is the
>offering of facts and logic (of some sort) in the hope of changing
>another's mind, or even receiving counter arguments that will change
>one's own.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

As you said, practical considerations often limit how much time can be spent understanding an adversary.    Thus it isn't clear how to me the abstract possibility of Evil is actually grounded?  At some point action must/will be taken because the other guy is will make the "vanquish" move.    All this poking and prodding is all very interesting up to medium levels of violence, but where's the line.  Is there a line?  (I think there isn't one.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 4:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

Yes. Nuking a city is Evil, just in case that needs saying.

On November 25, 2020 2:01:01 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Macroviolence like Nagasaki may still be intended to "communicate", but
>it also aims to vanquish.  Earlier you said that "But it's Evil to
>insist you've learned all you need to know about some or another
>subject."  So it would be Evil to vanquish such an adversary?   There's
>always more to know about them, of course.  

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

At first it seemed like these are separate questions: 1) grounding of willful ignorance and 2) is there a thresholding that separates influence from coercion. But maybe they're the same question, rooted in one's capacity to reflect ... to qualify one's ignorance, including the differences between how one's self interacts with the world and how others interact with the world.

We see the grounding in micro with bullying and macro with war, e.g. a kid used to violence thinking it's no big deal to punch a kid who's not used to violence in the former, and asymmetric responses in the latter. I suppose it comes down to training. For example, how *could* Trump have known the consequences of dropping the MOAB back in 2017? In principle, the professionals he commanded would go to great lengths to *explain* the potential consequences, even though they had little data to work with themselves. Trump had the choice to be willingly ignorant or unwillingly ignorant. Let's assume Mr. Shortattentionspan did his level best to pay attention to their brief between burger bites, then pulls the trigger. Was that enough effort on his part to understand the consequences or not?

I honestly don't know. So, perhaps you're right in smearing my artificial distinction.

On 11/25/20 5:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> As you said, practical considerations often limit how much time can be spent understanding an adversary.    Thus it isn't clear how to me the abstract possibility of Evil is actually grounded?  At some point action must/will be taken because the other guy is will make the "vanquish" move.    All this poking and prodding is all very interesting up to medium levels of violence, but where's the line.  Is there a line?  (I think there isn't one.)


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Perhaps, with his requirement #3, Nick was revealing himself to be a closet postmodernist. This guy:

https://youtu.be/tnQtZfiNs8w?t=685

cites Latour as making the case that #2 is inadequate. Something more is needed for us to heed warnings of crisis. And he uses Greta Thunberg as an example. He has some other enlightening comments earlier in the video providing some (weak) justification for the neo-reactionists, similar to my (also weak) defenses of them. It's interesting to me because it does exactly what many of us purport to *want* ... common ground with which to have a discussion with the right wing wackos in our lives.


On 11/25/20 4:49 PM, ⛧ glen wrote:
> Well, at least we got rid of requirement #3. But I maintain that your requirement for logic is too ambiguous to defend. So if you'd drop that, we'd agree that "facts" are the only requirement for productive dialogue.

On 11/25/20 10:46 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>  1. A commitment to logic.  Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right?
>  2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them.
>  3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an honest attempt to Steelman (/sensu Ropellae) /the other guy’s argument.


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/