Yes, there's a name for it. They're dumbasses.

“[...] Clevinger was one of those people with lots of intelligence and no brains, and everyone knew it except those who soon found it out. In short, he was a dope." - Joseph Heller, Catch-22 https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7522733-in-short-clevinger-...

You mean people projecting this problem onto them with zero evidence beyond their own preconceptions and an occasional stereotype they read online?

HN should be better than this.

Let's read the thread: "There has to be (or ought to be) a name for this kind of epistemological fallacy, where in pursuit of truth, the pursuit of logical sophistication and soundness between starting assumptions (or first principles) and conclusions becomes functionally way more important than carefully evaluating and thoughtfully choosing the right starting assumptions (and being willing to change them when they are found to be inconsistent with sound observation and interpretation)."

Can people suffer from that impairment? Is that possible? If not, please explain how wrong assumptions can be eliminated without actively looking for them. If the impairment is real, what would you call its victims? Pick your own terminology.

Name calling may be helpful in some contexts, but I doubt it's persuasive to the people in question.

I think a huge part of the subtext to this conversation is that nothing is persuasive to the people in question. How many people in this thread have come down off the mountain to explain a point of view that's just bouncing off some dude who's never needed to develop a feedback loop for his thinking?

Calling someone a dumbass in this situation is a kindness, because the assumption is that they're capable of not being one with a little self-reflection.

> Calling someone a dumbass in this situation is a kindness

First they laugh...

Kindness means you're seeking the good of another -- it's noticing the needs of others and prioritizing their well-being.

I can't see how insulting someone pursues their well-being in any way.

That may work for literature, but I was hoping for something more precise.

Bullet biting.

Maybe "appeal to authority" covers it. The "rationality" or "intellect" or even "brilliance" of some claim's originator are fun things to talk about. But (even taking the claims at face value), those things aren't logically connected to whether the claim is actually true.

Or "garbage in, garbage out"? But that's really about computers. And maybe it is name calling. Is there no standard name for this? Or not in English?

Maybe it's similar to the "Good Student" picture. Bright within a given assignment, but taking the assignment to be immutable, or taking no interest in where the assignment comes from.

Or I've heard a saying "nobody will pay you to solve problems that they've already defined clearly."