31–40 of 68 posts
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…
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.
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.
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.
An excellent piece of terminology. Closely related to the concept of "not even wrong", I think?
Comprehensible arguments are easier to argue with, and favoured by rhetorics.
How different is "comprehensibility" from "epistemic legibility"? Comprehensible arguments are easier to argue with, and favoured by rhetorics.
One of the first points he makes in the piece!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ATLB is such a great book. I need to reread it now that I've learned how to take better notes.
Exactly. Have been hoping to find more books by the same author, but apparently it’s the only one he has written?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I hadn't thought in terms of hostile argument... you see this in verbal argument sometimes, where a person rambles or says vaguely contradicting things to prevent themselves from alienating their fan base.
Ambiguity lets people who endorse you to contort their interpretation into something they like.
So I think their advocating for specificity makes sense, it helps ensure that the argument is about some _thing_ and you're not engaging with some unknown meta game that lives outside the argument itself.