Over the years, I have watched the rationalist community decline from what i perceived to be a useful resource for providing me additional language to describe my experiences and combat bad rhetoric used to push bigoted causes. Nowadays, it seems like the rationalist community is jetisoning almost all of the principles they wrote about in favor of making poorly constructed disingenuous arguments in favor of the status quo - arguments that their own alleged principles tear apart.
I found “A Human’s Guide to Words” to be an excellent resource in helping me articulate flaws in a lot of bigoted rhetoric. I particularly appreciate the model of categorization presented - it has helped me make more sense of my gender identity and find ways to express how I feel inside to others. In particular, I found the terms “Fallacy of Compression” and “Sneaking in Connotations” to be very useful. However, I would prefer not to signal boost a work so intimately tied to many of Yudkowsky’s other crackpot beliefs.
Does anyone have some recommendations on similar books and resources where I could learn more about this sort of subject?
I think that you would ultimately be better served by developing a thorough historical understanding of how certain positions came to be rather than examination of logical mistakes in the rhetoric pushing for them.
Although you might like “The Rhetoric of Reaction” by Albert O. Hirschman, it bridges a bit of a middle ground between these two approaches.
I’m not familiar precisely with “A Human’s Guide to Words” but, looking at the articles you mentioned, it looks like the usually kind of rationalist neologisms and techno-babble analogies for things that already have names and established analogies. Like this:
Isn’t really saying anything other than the fallacy of equivocation, i.e. to utilize two different senses of the same or similar terms to support a conclusion, or just general confusion or ignorance of polysemy.
But I can’t be bothered to sift through the lot of this find out what to recommend in relation. Just browse through the Wikipedia articles on fallacies and psychological biases? Because it really looks just that ignorant.
As for more stuff about language and knowledge, you can’t be harmed by starting where generations of people have, with Plato. No, you don’t have to accept Plato’s view on everything and it is old but you will appreciate the way he slices through pseudo-answers and demonstrates the contradictions in seemingly sound answers. Also, probably as my name gives away, everything that Wittgenstein wrote. Wittgenstein, both in his early and late philosophy, is useful for cutting through nonsense and obtuse philosophical confusion. After that, maybe J.L. Austin’s How to Do Things with Words, which the name of “Human’s Guide” reminded me of. On Bullshit by Henry Frankfurt is probably also relevant, especially to American politics both in general but also in the feverish pitch at the moment.
I don’t know. Again, not sure of the object to reference against. People are all oow ahhh about rationalism but as far as precise language, it ain’t Sense and Reference or On Denoting, etc. Do rationalists even truth table?
mark serious posts nsfw, and consider “maybe not”
Hacking’s A Social Construction of What?