Scott Alexander explores the 'Proving Too Much' fallacy as an efficient tactic to quickly dismantle complex arguments, particularly those using Dark Arts techniques.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander discusses the fallacy of 'Proving Too Much', where an argument is challenged because it proves both its intended conclusion and obviously false conclusions. He praises this tactic for its ability to quickly dismantle complex arguments, particularly those using Dark Arts techniques. Scott provides examples of how this method can be applied to various philosophical arguments, including deontological reasoning about abortion and Pascal's Wager. He emphasizes the efficiency of this approach in debates and its power to cut through complicated issues that might otherwise be irresolvable.
Shorter summary