@uisukii
You've harshly criticized Tzadeck, and others, for being too quick to make assumptions and failing to charitably interpret others' posts. However, many of your retorts leave the impression that you're doing the very things you criticize.
In reply to Tzadeck, you say:
uisukii wrote:
Whether or not you think that drdunlap comes off as more reasonable as mr_hans_moleman is entirely irrelevant.
If Tzadeck made the exact same claim, I'm sure you would have have critiqued it for failing to give a reason for why the reasonableness of drdunlap or mr_hans_moleman is irrelevant. However, you bluntly claim that it is irrelevant without offering any evidence whatsoever. Isn't a claim without evidence the very definition of an assumption? To be fair, I admit that there are warranted and unwarranted assumptions, and I address this issue below.
Before pointing out any assumptions, however, couldn't we at least try to develop a convincing account for Tzadeck's claim that reasonableness is relevant? With minimal effort, I can readily think of an example in which reasonableness is relevant: the boy who cried wolf, who unreasonably shouts "wolf" to warn his village when, in fact, there is no wolf. It's unreasonable because the purpose of shouting "wolf" is to warn the village of a wolf. But if someone yells "wolf" when there is no wolf, then it becomes useless as a warning. Perhaps this example is not similar enough to the case of drdunlap and mr_hans_moleman to be analogous, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it to you to fill in the gaps. Although, I should add, that depends on the charity of your interpretation.
Not to be gratuitous, but let me point to another example. You say:
uisukii wrote:
The point is that they both put in the hard work and achieved something which many take years longer to do.
Aren't you assuming that they actually achieved the things they claimed to have done? What supports this assumption? Sure, you can say that Tzadeck is being uncharitable by dismissing their claims, but that seems to once more be another uncharitable assumption of what Tzadeck is trying to do. Isn't it possible that Tzadeck, in fact, wants to believe their claims, but is examining them so we may see if the claims withstand critique?
Finally, when Tzadeck gives up trying to respond to your uncharitable replies, you make the following snipe:
uisukii wrote:
Avoiding something doesn't invalidate it.
You suggest that Tzadeck is avoiding the debate. I think Tzadeck is avoiding you.
To be sure, your criticisms of Tzadeck in the post I'm replying to are correct, but only if you view them in a narrow context. If you look to the wider background, namely, the kind of evidence needed to support extraordinary claims, then Tzadeck's skepticism seems wholly justified. Yes, Tzadeck fails to articulate what the evidential standards are and why they justify skepticism, but do you honestly expect that degree of thoroughness from anyone, even yourself? It's quite reasonable to leave that extra work to the charitable reader, otherwise making any substantial claim will require an accompanying treatise on the epistemic justifications for the claim.
The conclusion to draw here is that not all assumptions need to be pointed out when no support for them is offered. There is a difference between warranted and unwarranted assumptions. Of course, there is the issue of how to determine which assumptions are warranted or unwarranted (which I obviously cannot address in a forum post), and I realize there may be situations where the evidential standards, assumed or otherwise, are unclear or problematic. However, instead of openly mocking a poster for making an assumption without offering any support, I suggest asking some pointed questions aimed at drawing out helpful details from the poster.
Now, I hope you don't reply to my post with clever criticisms about the errors in my reasoning because then my purpose in writing this will be lost. Rather, I hope you reply, not directly to my post, but with a new approach in your future posts. Instead of continuing to pedantically and uncharitably criticize others' posts, I hope you try to interpret them in a way that is helpful to the discussion. In this case, what is helpful to the discussion are posts that show how it is possible to pass the N1 exam in two years and that focus on verifying and elaborating on exactly how it is possible to manage such a feat. What is not helpful are posts only bickering about how another poster makes unwarranted assumptions. If you show how certain unwarranted assumptions lead to problems or inaccurate claims, then that would be an excellent contribution. Unfortunately, I see nothing of the sort. All I see is "Tzadeck's argument has gaps and unwarranted assumptions! Your move, Tzadeck." What I'd like to see is "The gaps and unwarranted assumptions in Tzadeck's argument are problematic because, if assumed, we overlook good evidence for believing that, in fact, we have good reason to believe mr_hans_moleman's claims." Now that would be a great post.
Edit: I considered sending this as a PM, but then realized it'd be better to post here since it could inspire others to contribute more constructively to discussions.
Last edited by vileru (2013 October 15, 10:29 am)
. Should I just go with 3?