Comment by kubb
4 days ago
Using the easy to defend claim (acting without perfect information is necessary) to defend a much broader one (my judgement is rational and justified based on the information I have) is a classical motte and bailey fallacy.
People in the rationalist community don’t see it, because ironically they’re not rational enough. But they use the language and essay format to make it seem like they are.
Yeah I think it is some form of missplaced reductionism. No information versus perfect information then argue for perfect information.
I wrote in a sibling post that they like fascism because any dispute can be reduced to and solved by beating the counterpart to death with sticks.