So you think the argument is correct? In that case, what are we even disagreeing about? The argument concluded that the rationalist community is not being particularly "irrational" or even doing anything clearly wrong in not reading and reacting to the text. Do you want this to change? If not, I don't see why you even bother posting about it. If yes, I think I offered some reasonably actionable ways in which you could make it change. Of course, if you think those ways are not actually actionable, this does reflect badly on the case itself: for instance, if even people interested in and informed on the topic can't propose a mechanism of action by which Ivermectin is supposed to help against COVID, this makes it more likely that such a mechanism doesn't exist.
And Instead of "continue disbelieving in Ivermectin's efficacy" it would be more accurate to say people "don't care to change one's mind based on new information because one cannot even be bothered to understand it".
The world is full of texts that claim to improve your life drastically which I assume you haven't all read, ranging from self-help books to religious scriptures. If I tell you that Dianetics (the Scientology book) is very definitively correct and will improve your life for the better, will you go read it? If not, why not? Do you also "not care to change your mind based on new information because you cannot even be bothered to understand it"? Is every explanation you have for not reading those texts also a "rationalisation" as you define the term, or do you figure that your reasoning there is more legitimate somehow?
[...] your orignal comment [...] saying "[...] I suggest everyone do so."
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 -
So you think the argument is correct? In that case, what are we even disagreeing about? The argument concluded that the rationalist community is not being particularly "irrational" or even doing anything clearly wrong in not reading and reacting to the text. Do you want this to change? If not, I don't see why you even bother posting about it. If yes, I think I offered some reasonably actionable ways in which you could make it change. Of course, if you think those ways are not actually actionable, this does reflect badly on the case itself: for instance, if even people interested in and informed on the topic can't propose a mechanism of action by which Ivermectin is supposed to help against COVID, this makes it more likely that such a mechanism doesn't exist.
The world is full of texts that claim to improve your life drastically which I assume you haven't all read, ranging from self-help books to religious scriptures. If I tell you that Dianetics (the Scientology book) is very definitively correct and will improve your life for the better, will you go read it? If not, why not? Do you also "not care to change your mind based on new information because you cannot even be bothered to understand it"? Is every explanation you have for not reading those texts also a "rationalisation" as you define the term, or do you figure that your reasoning there is more legitimate somehow?
Can you quote where you think I said that?
More options
Context Copy link