| > 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. |
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.