Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

acesounderglass.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#21

Post by dataduck »

TameAntelope wrote: post #20
version_five wrote: post #7

I didn't see it mentioned, I think I "epistemic literacy" is the other side of the coin. I see examples of people demanding citations for reasoning that is part of a work, of people just not understanding something, or of only really being able to blindly follow based on province or authority without trying to reconcile back to what they know. If there is going to be a standard for legibility, there should be one for…

This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine; when people ask for a citation for reasoning, and then smugly declaring victory when no such citation is provided, as if you even could "cite" analysis.

That's especially fair, as there's a good-faith way of engaging with such things that they've avoided: "Could you expand on this please?"

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#22

Post by ganzuul »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #12
ganzuul wrote: post #9

...Falsifiable? The author uses a lot of words and seems to appreciate brevity, but isn't the entire article summarized by this one word?

I took it as more in the realm of information theory and less about hard science or even content. Less about falsifiable or correct and "does this compile". More "can I easily grok what this function is trying to do even if it isn't compiling". I see this term as an attempt to define a precursor to "Cogent" or maybe it's an attempt to give "Cogent" a more formalized definition.

I got the additional impression that there are bounds to how freely the reader can interpret the narrative. Thus freed from endless mental contortion to make the argument work, the reader can assume that they are not too ignorant to understand the wit of the author but actually able to judge them as lacking. - The author has not made themself beyond reproach by presenting an irrefutable argument.

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#23

Post by yboris »

Any time I heard "epistemic" I am reminded of the stellar paper "In Praise of Epistemic Irresponsibility: How Lazy and Ignorant Can You Be?" by Michael Bishop

Arguing that in numerous settings, even crude simple linear mathematical models outperform experts in a variety of tasks.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20118248

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#25

Post by yboris »

Also reminds me of "computational kindness" where, for example, you give people 2 specific date-times to have lunch, rather than asking them to look through their entire calendar and come up with something (it's easier to check two time slots than to think about all your obligations).

Comes from Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths' "Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions"

https://boingboing.net/2016/06/17/algorithms-to-live-by-what...

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#27

Post by skybrian »

TameAntelope wrote: post #20
version_five wrote: post #7

I didn't see it mentioned, I think I "epistemic literacy" is the other side of the coin. I see examples of people demanding citations for reasoning that is part of a work, of people just not understanding something, or of only really being able to blindly follow based on province or authority without trying to reconcile back to what they know. If there is going to be a standard for legibility, there should be one for…

This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine; when people ask for a citation for reasoning, and then smugly declaring victory when no such citation is provided, as if you even could "cite" analysis.

Even expert analysis isn't evidence. At its best, an expert can give you a sense of the range of possibilities, which might include things you never thought of. But actually knowing what's happening in a specific case requires evidence.

It seems like being clear about what you're doing (are you just discussing possibilities or trying to claim something specific) would go a long way in avoiding such misunderstandings.

(And I of course don't know which cases you're talking about, so I'm just talking about possibilities.)

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#28

Post by skybrian »

padobson wrote: post #5

I thought the concept of Epistemic Spot Checks was a great idea, so I was hoping that there might be some on the blog checking materials I had previously read so I could compare my intuitions with the author's hobby, but I didn't find anything. The About Me says the author gave up the project after a year or so, but I'm still curious about updating my own epistemological toolbox. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Maybe check out other posts on the blog to see how they did it? They've done epistemic spot checks on book chapters. It sounds like a lot of work!

Looks like these blog posts are tagged:

https://acesounderglass.com/tag/epistemicspotcheck/

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#29

Post by chrisweekly »

yboris wrote: post #25

Also reminds me of "computational kindness" where, for example, you give people 2 specific date-times to have lunch, rather than asking them to look through their entire calendar and come up with something (it's easier to check two time slots than to think about all your obligations). Comes from Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths' "Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions" https://boingboing.net/…

ATLB is such a great book. I need to reread it now that I've learned how to take better notes.

Re: Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

#30

Post by adfgadfgaery »

awb wrote: post #13
version_five wrote: post #7

I didn't see it mentioned, I think I "epistemic literacy" is the other side of the coin. I see examples of people demanding citations for reasoning that is part of a work, of people just not understanding something, or of only really being able to blindly follow based on province or authority without trying to reconcile back to what they know. If there is going to be a standard for legibility, there should be one for…

> I see examples of people demanding citations for reasoning that is part of a work, of people just not understanding something, or of only really being able to blindly follow based on province or authority without trying to reconcile back to what they know. That’s a tricky one for me because I see a lot of utility in asking for sources: a) Curiosity. Maybe I really want to know how this person came to believe what t…

I think you misunderstand OP. The purpose of citations is to prove facts. The argument made based on those facts does not need a citation.

Much of the time it isn't fair to ask for citations even for specific facts, but that's a separate problem.

Post reply on HN