[alphapapa]

> Ignoring an argument because its source is "odious"ly biased is the political equivalent of using heuristics to prune a huge search space.

You're proving Damore's point. You refuse to consider his arguments because of your prejudiced, emotional reaction. This is patently irrational.

> It may not always give you an optimal answer. But then, climbing every ant hill to the bitter end may not get you to an answer in your lifetime anyways.

This is a strawman and an argument to absurdity, i.e. also irrational.

> So you can actually be pretty damn certain that without heuristics, you'll never find the truth.

You'll never find the truth if you irrationally dismiss arguments that oppose your prejudiced opinions--unless, of course, you've already arrived at the truth. But believing you've already arrived at the truth would be arrogant and closed-minded, right?

[throwawayjava]

> You refuse to consider his arguments because of your prejudiced, emotional reaction

GP gave a hypothetical, and I'm responding to that hypothetical.

In fact, I did not refuse to consider his arguments. I considered them. They're poorly sourced, terribly reasoned, and not very well communicated. FWIW I do feel bad that they guy lost his job for what amounts to poor communication, worse argumentation skills, and a misplaced belief that engineers are special enough to be exempt from the generally shitty employee/employer relationship as it exists in the USA.

But that's all beside the point, because I'm responding to a hypothetical.

> You'll never find the truth if you irrationally dismiss arguments

My point is that you'll ALSO never find truth if you climb every adversary-constructed hill in the state space. Your suggested method for finding truth is even worse than mine, and what's more, you're claiming the opposite.

I'm at least admitting that I have to use heuristics. You're just watching the tower of exponentials crank up and claiming "no problem! We can compute that!"

> But believing you've already arrived at the truth would be arrogant and closed-minded, right?

It's possible to remain open to new ideas and also not waste time on evaluating or responding to arguments that aren't motivated by a genuine search for truth. (Again, this comment was in response to a hypothetical.)

I highly doubt you actually disagree with me in practice, because such a life would surely doom you to misery and unemployment. Do you spend all your free time reading and/or responding to arguments from flat earthers, BS science posted on white supremacy forums, and marketing claims made by infomercials and bill boards? Do you engage with every crank preacher and evangelist who comes to your door or yells at you on the street? Of course not.

[alphapapa]

> In fact, I did not refuse to consider his arguments. I considered them. They're poorly sourced, terribly reasoned, and not very well communicated.

There are prominent, respected authorities and experts on both sides of the political spectrum who disagree with you, ones who have explained in detail why they disagree with you. What do you think about that?

> My point is that you'll ALSO never find truth if you climb every adversary-constructed hill in the state space.

I feel like you didn't read my comment, because you're repeating your previous argument: "...climbing every ant hill to the bitter end may not get you to an answer in your lifetime anyways," to which I responded, "This is a strawman and an argument to absurdity, i.e. also irrational."

> Your suggested method for finding truth is even worse than mine, and what's more, you're claiming the opposite.

Again, I feel like you didn't read my comment. Where did I suggest such a method?

> I'm at least admitting that I have to use heuristics. You're just watching the tower of exponentials crank up and claiming "no problem! We can compute that!"

Where did I say that?

> It's possible to remain open to new ideas and also not waste time on evaluating or responding to arguments that aren't motivated by a genuine search for truth.

I agree with this.

However, you are jumping to a conclusion by assuming that he is not interested in the truth. It is quite arrogant of you, to assume you know what is in his mind and heart. This is not good faith on your part.

> Do you spend all your free time reading and/or responding to arguments from flat earthers, BS science posted on white supremacy forums, and marketing claims made by infomercials and bill boards? Do you engage with every crank preacher and evangelist who comes to your door or yells at you on the street? Of course not.

Once again you prove Damore's point: by equating him with such people, and equating his memo with such things, you are evincing an emotional, prejudiced overreaction and stubborn refusal to seriously consider his arguments.

[throwawayjava]

> There are prominent, respected authorities and experts on both sides of the political spectrum who disagree with you

Disagree with my about what? I think it would be helpful if you put in words the claim you think I'm making. I feel that we're talking past one another because you think I'm talking about Damore when in fact I'm responding to a hypothetical posited by another commenter.

> This is a strawman and an argument to absurdity, i.e. also irrational.

I don't pay attention to Nazi's scientific arguments for racism, anti-feminist's claims that women are incapable of certain tasks, or infomercials' claims about how amazing a product is. In each situation the signal-to-noise ratio is intractable and the arguments are not made from the position of a genuine search for truth. I'm better off encountering that evidence in other contexts presented by genuine actors, or simply never seeing it at all. Not all arguments are helpful. Some are intentionally crafted to distract and obscure.

If you think that makes me irrational, so be it. Your disagreement strikes me as hopelessly naive. I'd rather behave irrationally than waste my life chasing down the errors in arguments made by biased idiots who have no problem with lying to advance their ideology.

> Again, I feel like you didn't read my comment. Where did I suggest such a method?

Well if you have no better method then I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do. Give up on truth?

> However, you are jumping to a conclusion by assuming that he is not interested in the truth

Please read the entire thread. I am assuming this because it is posited as a hypothetical!

I fact, I do not believe this is true in Damore's case. But it is certainly true in the case of many people who are defending Damore (eg Mike Cernovich), and I don't think taking their arguments on face value is worth the time or effort. They are not interested in truth, they are interested in power, so their arguments are pointless if what you're interested in is truth.

But again, nowhere in this thread have I stated anything about Damore. I was responding to a hypothetical.

> by equating him with such people

Again, I was responding to a hypothetical!!!

[throwawayjava]

I was responding to a hypothetical!!!