Thanks for writing this. I found it accessible, despite being fairly weak on stats (though I do remember what a beta distribution is).
Your piece has a vibe of a warning for young rationalists that goes something like, "Beware, for not all who claim to be skeptics are ones." Would you say this is a correct interpretation?
"Beware, for not all who claim to be skeptics are ones."
Yes. Many people who claim to be skeptics actually are being skeptical in many claims, but the point of calling yourself "skeptic" is that you are being skeptical in all of them (or close to 100%). You can't call yourself a "peaceful" person if there are enough times you've reacted violently.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Thanks for writing this. I found it accessible, despite being fairly weak on stats (though I do remember what a beta distribution is).
Your piece has a vibe of a warning for young rationalists that goes something like, "Beware, for not all who claim to be skeptics are ones." Would you say this is a correct interpretation?
Yes. Many people who claim to be skeptics actually are being skeptical in many claims, but the point of calling yourself "skeptic" is that you are being skeptical in all of them (or close to 100%). You can't call yourself a "peaceful" person if there are enough times you've reacted violently.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link