User:Woozle/posts/others/No Universally Compelling Arguments

Link: http://lesswrong.com/lw/rn/no_universally_compelling_arguments/

Main Point

There is a belief (call it B1) that there are arguments which are so compelling that any mind must accept them. EY argues quite rigorously that this cannot be the case.

Objections

This seems kind of obvious to me, and perhaps a straw man (who actually believes B1?) -- the most obvious refutation being that some minds are not sane, and do not reason properly. Another exception is minds which have been infected by a hostile meme (or mind virus), and have great difficulty reasoning properly on certain topics affected by the infection.

• Richard4 makes this same point in a comment (no reply).
• Richard_Hollerith2 comments that he first thought it was a straw man, but then came up with an alternative explanation -- which unfortunately he did not elaborate on, so I can't tell if that interpretation makes any more sense than the one which seems like a straw man.

If "mind" is meant to include only minds that we would call "sane", or even "rational", this would make B1 a more compelling belief (and less of a straw man, and more in line with my own belief), and EY's argument against it would also fall apart (whether or not B1 is actually true).

Looking at the rational variant of B1 ("there are arguments which are so compelling that any rational mind must accept them" -- call this B2): wouldn't it be inconsistent with Aumann to believe otherwise? (More succinctly: if Aumann is true, must not B2 also be true?)

Miscellany

I can't figure out who EY is responding to in this comment. Perhaps this article was originally on Overcoming Bias, and the comment being responded to got lost during the import process?