[FRIAM] ad hominem as critical thinking

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

I'd like to draw attention to these two posts:

  When Critical Evaluation Goes Too Far
  https://www.downes.ca/post/71554

  Herd Immunity -- Facts and Numbers
  https://youtu.be/NENhBmN_tps?t=763

The first (implicitly) makes the point that there are degrees and layers of critical thinking. And Hossenfelder preemptively registers an examination of the source of some bit of info as "ad hominem", which I think exhibits a lack of critical thinking on her part. While it's true that the Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/) can and should be criticized for its content ignoring its sources, to do so debilitates the critical thinker in an important way. I think the important distinction lies not in whether one's "attacking" the source, but in the *type* of "attack." Having had my own criticisms be labeled as "attacks", I'm obviously sensitive to that difference. Questioning assumptions, incentives, motive, and track record is a perfectly legitimate way to criticize an argument. How one gets to some conclusion is as important as the soundness of the conclusion itself. I.e. even in *reasoning*, a mechanism is necessary.

Re: Dunning-Kruger and this post:

  Why Abstaining Helps
  https://www.overcomingbias.com/2020/11/why-abstaining-helps.html

wherein Hanson makes the argument that we (all) should abstain from voting if we judge ourselves too ignorant to do so. I like the argument that Dunning-Kruger, where competent people over-estimate the competence of their colleagues and incompetent people over-estimate their own competence. That's a very layered criticism of Hanson's free-market-like fluid probabilities conception. But the following criticism of that post takes it a step further ... and kindasorta in the right direction, I think:

  https://mobile.twitter.com/ExiledDalioLama/status/1322744855689383937
  "to me the flaw of this model is that it misunderstands the purpose of voting
   it's not simply about choosing policies to maximize some objective function, voting is the way we specify the objective function"

A vote isn't really a statement of one's competence in determining which candidate will produce the most utility for the world, nation, whatever ... a typical "rationalist" arrogance. It's a *marketing* reaction. We're the focus group and we've just been presented with the Trump and Biden pitches. Our vote is more of a "liked it" or "hated it" response, our constant reminder that the world is impredicative, defined in terms of universal quantifiers.

I used to scoff at those who thought of political campaigns as being about the "character" of the politician. But I now (think I) understand it. Assessing someone's character and credibility is as much about their assumptions, motivations, incentives, and track record as it is about particular artifacts they extrude and leave laying on the floor [⛧]. Predicting what a Biden or Trump admin will do over the next 4 years is irrelevant. What we're voting on is our *assessment* of their character. If you're ignoring their character in your assessment at this point, you are not a very competent critical thinker.






[⛧] Yes, that's a euphemism for "sh¡t".

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ