Intellectual Denial of Service Attacks, Part 2

It feels great when I read something that, somehow, I always believed but could not exactly articulate.

I know people that believe that, most of the time, the best way to respond to unreasonable or irrational petitions is to do it by means of answering the actual points made, even if completely unwarranted and time consuming.

For instance, claims of some random paranormal effect should be put to the test with proper scientific investigation, like that would satisfy the claimant and not take us in a never-ending endeavour...

Sometimes, the best way to answer the problem is to make use of well tested heuristics that, instead of going into the specific details, just make the elephant in room more evident: some problems are simply not well put, or some answers miss the point (e.g. the paranormal claim is pseudo-scientific therefore will never accept a negative result, whichever it may be; to feed the troll will not satiate the troll, etc).

As an alternative to a bad map or no map, sometimes alternative solutions get shot down over pure arrogance, as with Musk's clear jealousy of that swim team guy who saved the kids from the cave. Musk wanted to be the hero, that mattered to him more than actually saving anybody, and so he went out of his way to critique and defame. Instead of appreciating the job well done and lives saved, he inserted himself into the situation. Jealousy can be a powerful motive all by itself, and is too often weaponized.

Also, I wonder where the dividing line between epistemic humility and thinking outside of boxes rests. I mean, is it purely circumstantial, or dependent upon personality traits?

> Because of an epidemic of suicides and mental health issues, the government should provide unlimited free candy to every citizen, to make everyone happier.

I just noticed there are actually full performances on Youtube of Erik Satie's Vexations-- a piece written in the 1890s in which the player is asked to repeat a dissonant chorale theme 860 times.

That is a common, effective, and ethical rhetorical tactic people use every day in conversation.

It's common because people aren't automatons who must respond to every potential point of debate.

It's effective because it forces the would-be debater to reveal information. Either they roll with the subject change and reveal their utterance as light novelty and disarm, or they attempt to switch the conversation back to their novelty, revealing themselves as a zealot (in this case).

It's ethical because if anyone in the group wants to participate in that zealotry they can continue on the original topic. But everyone else has an easy out through the non-sequitur. And it works just as well if the initial utterance was a truth told to an ignorant crowd. Those who want to know more can break off without the entire group being forced to become students.

Finally, if the interlocutor misjudged the situation, the non-sequitur is ignored and the conversation continues unabated.

In all cases DOS is avoided.

If a medium doesn't support this tactic you might want to question the efficacy of the medium.

"The map is not the territory" is an idea originating from Alfred Korzybski. He isn't even mentioned in this article.

I have a funny feeling that this guy is going to push an agenda, particularly with his "free candy" example.

The trouble with the "the revolt of the masses" theme is that institutions are failing us, experts are frequently wrong, and if you want to see fake experts turn on cable news and there you are... Cokie Roberts is always warning democrats to turn the right or otherwise we'll have to have somebody like Pinochet purge the left (she won't tell you her husband was a foreign agent for the Pinochet regime.)

All b.s. All the time was not invented by Facebook, look at how the rush Limbaugh show was reality free before the web was invented.

There's definitely space for more thinking about epistemic security issues.

>Experts wielding their jargon and credentials as devices to shut up non-experts, even if non-experts have credible critiques and ideas to offer

I don't know if I can agree with this: a layperson might make some ridiculous claim about vaccines causing autism, and a medical doctor absolutely has the right to dismiss them based on credentials.