Scott argues that projects attempting to "solve debate" through argument mapping or similar technologies are fundamentally doomed because real arguments don't work like logical syllogisms, people don't actually want structured debates, and there's no evidence this approach has ever worked. Longer summary

Scott explains why he consistently rejects grant applications for projects aimed at improving online debates through argument mapping or similar technologies. He outlines several fundamental problems: real arguments don't decompose into simple logical premises and conclusions as these tools assume; arguments rarely hinge on simple factual errors or logical fallacies but on different weightings of evidence; these platforms face an impossible bootstrapping problem since people don't actually want structured debates (they want to express opinions and be agreed with); and unlike dating apps, there's no historical precedent for this type of technology working over thousands of years of human argumentation. Shorter summary

Scott critiques the phrase 'the purpose of a system is what it does' by showing how it confuses outcomes with intentions and leads to absurd or paranoid conclusions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the popular phrase 'the purpose of a system is what it does' (POSIWID) by showing how it leads to absurd conclusions. He uses several examples including cancer hospitals, the Ukrainian military, and public transport to demonstrate that a system's actual outcomes don't necessarily reflect its purpose. The post shows how people often misuse this phrase on social media to suggest malicious intent behind system failures, rather than acknowledging that systems can have unintended consequences or simply fail to achieve their goals. He concludes by suggesting satirical alternative phrasings that highlight the absurdity of the original. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander dissects and criticizes a common argument against AI safety that compares it to past unfulfilled disaster predictions, finding it logically flawed and difficult to steelman. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes a common argument against AI safety concerns, which compares them to past unfulfilled predictions of disaster (like a 'coffeepocalypse'). He finds this argument logically flawed and explores possible explanations for why people make it. Scott considers whether it's an attempt at an existence proof, a way to trigger heuristics, or a misunderstanding of how evidence works. He concludes that he still doesn't fully understand the mindset behind such arguments and invites readers to point out if he ever makes similar logical mistakes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores five unspoken assumptions in discussions that can lead to misunderstandings and logical fallacies when not clarified. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses five unspoken ground assumptions in discussions that can lead to misunderstandings and logical fallacies. These include: (1) whether one is presenting a balanced view or arguing for one side, (2) if the argument is literal or pointing towards a hard-to-explain concept, (3) whether describing real-world phenomena or underlying mechanisms, (4) if addressing a specific problem or contributing to a broader intellectual discussion, and (5) whether presenting a definite theory or a hypothesis for consideration. He argues that ambiguity in these grounds can lead to confusion and false accusations of logical fallacies. Shorter summary

The author humorously responds to a common argument against evidence-based medicine, suggesting a parachute experiment with a twist. Longer summary

This post is a humorous take on the common argument against evidence-based medicine that uses parachutes as an example. The author playfully suggests using those who make this argument as the control group in a parachute experiment, but then acknowledges that this would be unethical as groups need to be determined by random assignment. The post uses irony to subtly critique the flawed logic often used to dismiss evidence-based medicine. Shorter summary

A humorous fictional tale about a logician and a God-Emperor illustrates the importance of precise logical language through two scenarios involving logical operators. Longer summary

This post is a short fictional story that humorously illustrates the importance of precise logical language. It features a logician who outwits a God-Emperor using a logical loophole, only to be outsmarted himself in the end. The story revolves around two scenarios: one involving the logician's interpretation of 'or' vs. 'xor', and another demonstrating the difference between 'if' and 'iff' in logical statements. The tale serves as a playful reminder of how subtle differences in logical operators can lead to vastly different outcomes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander outlines and criticizes ten fallacious argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's beliefs, demonstrating how they can be used to unfairly attack any position. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a series of argument styles that misrepresent an opponent's position by exaggerating or distorting their belief. He presents ten variations of this fallacious reasoning, each escalating the misrepresentation in a different way. These range from likening a belief to religious faith, to suggesting that holding a belief implies extreme fanaticism or hatred of opponents. The post concludes with a densely packed example combining all ten argument styles, using the mundane topic of wearing coats in cold weather to demonstrate how absurd these arguments can become when applied to any belief. Scott clarifies that while some of these issues can be real problems, these argument styles are 'fully general' and can be used to attack any position unfairly. Shorter summary

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