I feel like the correct use of "directionally correct" is when the facts you say are almost entirely correct and any reasonable person will make the same update based on your facts and any corrected facts.
For example, if Blackstone actually owned 31% of houses instead of 33%, or if you said USAID wasted 0.2 billion when the real number is 0.18 billion. But approximately nobody does this in politics and instead, I can't tell the difference between "directionally correct" and "unambiguously false"
Hmm, a statistic being marginally off doesn't match my understanding of the phrase.
What would you say about the phrase: "we should care about insects because there are millions of them and they have similar capabilities for suffering as humans!"
This is my sense of something being "directionally correct".
Starting off a story about "directionally correct" stuff with the unqualified claim that immigrants commit less crime than natives, and then supporting it with a study that applies TO THE US STATE OF TEXAS only is either a uniquely ironic move, or a great example of American (even Texan) solipsism. Please edit the top, so you don't epate les bourgeois.
(I noticed I was only posting comments when I disagree or have something extra to share. To combat that bias, I'll try and post more trivial comments when I agree with a post)
"To overcome the data deficit, the Federation for American Immigration Reform considered statistics from the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which enables states to get reimbursed by Washington for the cost of incarcerating illegals. To be paid, states must verify that prisoners are illegal immigrants and file detailed reports to the feds. Examining the SCAAP data for ten states with the highest illegal-alien populations, the FAIR study found that, on average, illegals were more than twice as likely to be in prison in California, compared with other state residents; they were twice as likely to be in prison in New York, too; in New Jersey, they were nearly four times as likely, and in Arizona, nearly five times. Among the states studied, Texas showed the smallest difference between legal residents and illegal immigrants in rates—probably, the FAIR authors theorized, thanks to tougher border enforcement, which deters immigrant criminals from remaining in the state."
Surely you would lie in order to reduce shrimp suffering by 0.000000007%, right?
Seems like you should lie whenever, in your estimation (subject to uncertainty) it would change the situations you find morally salient for the better.
Generally lying reduces your reputation, which makes people discredit your future statements (which may be truthful and reduce suffering). So from a utilitarian perspective, you shouldn’t lie except in extreme circumstances.
To lie is to knowingly spread false information. I'd say if someone convincingly points out to you that something you said was false and you refuse to issue a retraction, you have earned the distinction of "liar".
Suppose some guy comes into the comments section here and mentions a study that makes a convincing case that shrimp and insects do not feel appreciable pain. Suppose the author gives a trivial response to that comment and continues to spam articles every week talking about how important shrimp and insect welfare are. Is this author now a liar?
If he's not convinced in the correctness of the study, then no, he wouldn't be a liar for omitting it. Though, I personally think it would be good practice to present the case for the opposite side and explain why you think it's wrong. Regardless, shrimp consciousness is something that's really hard to definitively prove, so it's easy to imagine that someone may question a study purporting to find evidence for or against it. It's a very different situation from a basic verifiable fact like whether USAID covered up a child sex abuse ring or not.
I believe that the difference boils down to the intention. To lie is to deceive. However, to give a wrong argument -at least in most cases- is not to lie, for the person proposing it may not have done so with intention to deceive, but because they genuinely believe it to be true at the moment.
I feel like the correct use of "directionally correct" is when the facts you say are almost entirely correct and any reasonable person will make the same update based on your facts and any corrected facts.
For example, if Blackstone actually owned 31% of houses instead of 33%, or if you said USAID wasted 0.2 billion when the real number is 0.18 billion. But approximately nobody does this in politics and instead, I can't tell the difference between "directionally correct" and "unambiguously false"
Yes I agree. The phrase directionally correct is alright in theory--it just doesn't work in practice.
So you’re saying the phrase “directionally correct” is directionally correct.
Hmm, a statistic being marginally off doesn't match my understanding of the phrase.
What would you say about the phrase: "we should care about insects because there are millions of them and they have similar capabilities for suffering as humans!"
This is my sense of something being "directionally correct".
I would call the Blackstone example "close enough to correct" or "incorrect on bare technicality"
But "directionally correct" almost implies in its name "false but I'm yelling at the right person"
That’s not the way ppl I know use that term. They use it in the way described by Linch.
I agree, none of the cited examples seem to actually use the phrase that is allegedly being abused
The best part of that exchange is confusing seppuku with sudoku
I think that was intentional irony.
Damn, maybe I should commit sudoku
Starting off a story about "directionally correct" stuff with the unqualified claim that immigrants commit less crime than natives, and then supporting it with a study that applies TO THE US STATE OF TEXAS only is either a uniquely ironic move, or a great example of American (even Texan) solipsism. Please edit the top, so you don't epate les bourgeois.
I fully agree with this article.
(I noticed I was only posting comments when I disagree or have something extra to share. To combat that bias, I'll try and post more trivial comments when I agree with a post)
"To overcome the data deficit, the Federation for American Immigration Reform considered statistics from the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which enables states to get reimbursed by Washington for the cost of incarcerating illegals. To be paid, states must verify that prisoners are illegal immigrants and file detailed reports to the feds. Examining the SCAAP data for ten states with the highest illegal-alien populations, the FAIR study found that, on average, illegals were more than twice as likely to be in prison in California, compared with other state residents; they were twice as likely to be in prison in New York, too; in New Jersey, they were nearly four times as likely, and in Arizona, nearly five times. Among the states studied, Texas showed the smallest difference between legal residents and illegal immigrants in rates—probably, the FAIR authors theorized, thanks to tougher border enforcement, which deters immigrant criminals from remaining in the state."
I think this post points the right way.
Surely you would lie in order to reduce shrimp suffering by 0.000000007%, right?
Seems like you should lie whenever, in your estimation (subject to uncertainty) it would change the situations you find morally salient for the better.
Generally lying reduces your reputation, which makes people discredit your future statements (which may be truthful and reduce suffering). So from a utilitarian perspective, you shouldn’t lie except in extreme circumstances.
"But I don’t get to this conclusion by lying. I get to it by giving arguments in its favor."
What's the difference between a lie and an argument that's wrong?
To lie is to knowingly spread false information. I'd say if someone convincingly points out to you that something you said was false and you refuse to issue a retraction, you have earned the distinction of "liar".
"Convincingly" is doing a lot of work here.
Suppose some guy comes into the comments section here and mentions a study that makes a convincing case that shrimp and insects do not feel appreciable pain. Suppose the author gives a trivial response to that comment and continues to spam articles every week talking about how important shrimp and insect welfare are. Is this author now a liar?
If he's withholding the evidence that shrimp may not feel pain now that he's aware of it, yes.
What if he simply thinks that any study that downplays shrimp suffering is wrong, and any study that amplifies it is right?
If he's not convinced in the correctness of the study, then no, he wouldn't be a liar for omitting it. Though, I personally think it would be good practice to present the case for the opposite side and explain why you think it's wrong. Regardless, shrimp consciousness is something that's really hard to definitively prove, so it's easy to imagine that someone may question a study purporting to find evidence for or against it. It's a very different situation from a basic verifiable fact like whether USAID covered up a child sex abuse ring or not.
I believe that the difference boils down to the intention. To lie is to deceive. However, to give a wrong argument -at least in most cases- is not to lie, for the person proposing it may not have done so with intention to deceive, but because they genuinely believe it to be true at the moment.