Title: Theory / Unimportant / Human / blog / Less wrong / Gens / SSC

Question: What are the rules for choosing which excuse to accept
Answer: -Must accept each equally good excuses. At least of people knowing you enough to predict, or now the antecedant.
Page: https://www.lesserwrong.com/codex/eight-short-studies-on-excuses

Title: different-worlds
Description: People lives in extremly different world, without even noticing. We know very-few/no flat-eartist while it's more than a third of USA. We create neighborhood around us which ensure that even if we don't make choice about this explicitly
Creators: Scott alexander
Other fields (not shown on cards):
In: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/02/different-worlds/
Kind: Blog post

Title: IN FAVOR OF FUTURISM BEING ABOUT THE FUTURE
Description: Post where SA explains why futurist are not only considering current biaises and political dispute, but effect of potential futur discoveries. Which may affect everyone
Creators: Scott alexander
Other fields (not shown on cards):
In: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/09/in-favor-of-futurism-being-about-the-future/
Kind: Blog post

Title: Memoirs of the Twentieth Century,
Description: People in 1999 writting to 1733. They mostly say how much catholic sucks. First futurist novel
Creators: Madden
Other fields (not shown on cards):
Kind: Nover

Question: Why will it matters to poor people whether some futurist's prevision become true or not.
Answer: Because some assume earth will be destroyed. Thus everyone is dead.
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/09/in-favor-of-futurism-being-about-the-future/

Title: WERE THERE DARK AGES?
Description: Discussing in details a paper explaining why dark age didn't exists. What it may means, why most arguments to state the inexistence are applied here and not for other historical times/event. Why this person may say that.
Creators: Scott Alexander
Other fields (not shown on cards):
In: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages/
Kind: Blog post

Question: Why do church did burn/kill most scientist
Answer: Because they clearly and straightforwardly question god's existence, and not only «science». You can't question only some things.
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/
Chapter: Scott Alexander

Name: Kolmogorov option
Definition: When you are in an authoritarian state, say what the state want you to say, and go do your science on the side
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/
Chapter: Scott Alexander
Name2: Kolmogorov complicity
Etymology: What Kolmogorov did in order to do science in peace

Title: KOLMOGOROV COMPLICITY AND THE PARABLE OF LIGHTNING
Description: Discussing while scientist will find things about the doxa. How they can sometime survive, why the state may let them survive with little trouble
Creators: Scott Alexander
Other fields (not shown on cards):
In: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/

Title: HOW DID NEW ATHEISM FAIL SO MISERABLY?
Description: Discussing why «new atheist» failed why similar causes still are there
Creators: Scott Alexander
Other fields (not shown on cards):
In: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/

Question: Hypothesis for explaining failure of new atheists
Answer: They repeat things to people already believing it, who also think everyone do believe it.
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/
Chapter: Scott Alexander
Answer2: People have close relative who believe in god, or maybe themselves. Thus, it's not as easy to accept as most SJW facts.
Answer3: Enemys does not make anything new, so it does not even have novelty with them (as opposite to reacting to Trump's last tweet)
Answer4: Whether they win or not does not seems to have an impact

Name: Concept shaped hole
Definition: Some thing that you don't have and you don't even realize that other people really have something here
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-can-be-impossible-to-notice/
Example: Someone without smell believes that smell is a metaphor
Example2: People without visual imagination believe that people describing object has learn them by heart
Example3: If you live in a moderm individual town, giving food to your neighboor's dog when they are absent for a few day seems to be a «community». You don't realize it can be as in medieval village where individual almost do not exists

Title: CONCEPT-SHAPED HOLES CAN BE IMPOSSIBLE TO NOTICE
Description: Considering notions that you don't have and don't even realize that you don't have. Considering why you may not realize that you don't have them.
Creators: SCOTT ALEXANDER
Other fields (not shown on cards):
In: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-can-be-impossible-to-notice/

Question: Why may you not realize you have concept-shaped hole ?
Answer: You believe people having this concept are either poetic or playing a social game where you must say you have it
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-can-be-impossible-to-notice/

Question: One reason to avoid dismissing entire fields which says platitude according to SSC
Answer: The field may be a concept-shaped hole. It sometime did occurs
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-can-be-impossible-to-notice/

Title: Ars longa, vita Brevis
Description: A guild of alchemist trying to be as perfect as possible. Someone search for perfection in teaching, in understanding hard concept, in balancing both arts. So that the guild can advance as much as possible, to its extreme limits, and finally find a solution to death. They are almost here, by a few hours.
A king ask for their best alchemist. They refuse. A bad alchemist explain why to the king's messenger
Creators: SCOTT ALEXANDER
Other fields (not shown on cards):
In: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
Kind: Short novel

Name: Competitive dictatorship
Definition: You live in a dictatorship but can choose in which you live. Thus dictator compete to have people in their community
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours/

Question: How can a community can create it's own legal system
Answer: Greatest rule is: expelled from the community
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours/
Answer2: Have contract between every members about reciprocal rules (as in a building)

Title: Self-serving bias
Description: A single state ban pumping gaz oneself. They authorize in some rare condition. Some state members are outrage. Remaining of the country laugh at them. But each state have laws as absurd as that. Maybe having best friend and talking to children is absurd.
How could we convince people we laugh at they are wrong. This may serve as outside view for our own rules.
It means that allowing child to have best friend may depend on debate. Thus on rationality level. Which is frightening
Creators: Scott Alexander
Other fields (not shown on cards):
Kind: Blog post

Question: Why would feminist take as example the most dubious rape example accorting to Scott Alexander
Answer: A rape which is so obvious everyone believe it is not a controversy. There is little to say about it
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
Answer2: It signals they are in the ingroup and that they'll believe every one

Name: Meta debate
Definition: debating whether some parties in the debate are violating norms
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/

Name: Social shaming
Definition: trying to push one side of the debate outside the bounds of respectability.
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: “Really, do conservatives have any consistent beliefs other than hating black people and wanting the poor to starve?”
Example2: “Just another purple-haired SJW snowflake who thinks all disagreement is oppression.”

Name: Gotchas
Definition: short claims that purport to be devastating proof that one side can’t possibly be right.
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: “If you like big government so much, why don’t you move to Cuba?”
Example2: “Isn’t it ironic that most pro-lifers are also against welfare and free health care? Guess they only care about babies until they’re born.”

Question: According to SSC, what is what mostly occurs in debate
Answer: Social shaming and meta debate
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/

Name: Single facts
Definition: when someone presents one fact, which admittedly does support their argument, as if it solves the debate in and of itself
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: “The UK has gun control, and the murder rate there is only a quarter of ours.”
Example2: “Hillary Clinton handled her emails in a scandalously incompetent manner and tried to cover it up.”

Name: Single studies
Definition: Using one study as if it ends the debate
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: “This paper from Gary Kleck shows that more guns actually cause less crime.”
Example2: “I think you’ll find economists have already investigated this and that the minimum wage doesn’t cost jobs.”

Name: Isolated demands for rigor
Definition: Demanding that an opposing argument satisfies a very strict rigor, when it's not required for other arguments
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: “You can’t be an atheist if you can’t prove God doesn’t exist.”
Example2: “Capital punishment is just state-sanctioned murder.”

Name: Disputing definitions
Definition: when an argument hinges on the meaning of words, or whether something counts as a member of a category or not.
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: Transgender is a mental illness.
Example2: Wanting English as the official language is racist.

Name: Clarifying
Definition: when people try to figure out exactly what their opponent’s position is
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: So communists think there shouldn’t be private ownership of factories, but there might still be private ownership of things like houses and furniture?”
Counterexample: So you’re saying that rape is good and we should have more of it, are you

Name: Operationalizing
Definition: where both parties understand they’re in a cooperative effort to fix exactly what they’re arguing about, where the goalposts are, and what all of their terms mean.
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: When I say the Soviet Union was communist, I mean that the state controlled basically all of the economy. Do you agree that’s what we’re debating here?
Intuition: every part of it has either been reduced to a factual question with a real answer (even if we don’t know what it is), or when it’s obvious exactly what kind of non-factual disagreement is going on (for example, a difference in moral systems, or a difference in intuitions about what’s important).

Name: High-level generators of disagreement
Definition: what remains when everyone understands exactly what’s being argued, and agrees on what all the evidence says, but have vague and hard-to-define reasons for disagreeing anyway
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Example: “I feel like a populace that owns guns is free and has some level of control over its own destiny, but that if they take away our guns we’re pretty much just subjects and have to hope the government treats us well.”
Example2: “Yes, there are some arguments for why this war might be just, and how it might liberate people who are suffering terribly. But I feel like we always hear this kind of thing and it never pans out. And every time we declare war, that reinforces a culture where things can be solved by force. I think we need to take an unconditional stance against aggressive war, always and forever.”

Left: We just have fundamentally different values
Right: You're just an evil person
Left2: I’ve got a heuristic here based on a lot of other cases I’ve seen
Right2: I prefer anecdotal evidence to facts
Page: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/
Context: Debate
Left3: I don’t think we can trust explicit reasoning in an area as fraught as this
Right3: I hate logic and am going to do whatever my biases say

Title: TOO MANY PEOPLE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
Description: Trying to distinguish what may be called a conspiracy from what can't
Creators: Scott Alexander
Other fields (not shown on cards):
Kind: blogpost