Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How much does someone making a point briefly and simply make you more likely to believe them?
In math, a short proof is better than a long proof, but a "proof" that skips a non-trivial step is not a proof at all.
This is a thousand times less rigorous when applied to less formal reasoning, but the principle is similar.
Perhaps in the informal case the other distinction to make is between arguments which are long because of additional steps made in "parallel" vs "serial"? If I believe A and you're trying to convince me of X, then "A -> B -> X" is slightly shorter than "A -> C -> D -> X" and much shorter than "A -> B -> X; A -> E -> X", but the second argument is probably less convincing than the first (now there are three steps I have to agree with instead of two, so I'm more doubtful unless they're each much simpler and more obvious inferences) and yet the third argument is at least as convincing than the first (there are now four steps, but so long as I agree with either the first two or the second two I will reach the same conclusion). The only catch with "parallel" arguments is that they ought to be ordered from most-convincing to least-. If a writer I don't already trust throws out dozens of arguments but the first three are obviously nonsense, I'm going to mutter "Gish gallop" and not bother to investigate whether number twenty is actually really persuasive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link