Activity Feed
#5442·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 5 hours agoDirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV:
Rejecting essentialism doesn't grant your ideas immunity from clarification. Being vague is not something to be proud of.
By your standard, I could invent any bullshit property of explanations, call it "glorpiness" and when you ask what it means, reply that definitions miss the point.
Dirk replies to a bunch more points Brett has made. I won’t get into them, at least not for now. Brett’s previous arguments have too many pending criticisms, and he ignores them, so tracking additional points won’t help. Brett isn’t in truth-seeking mode, he’s in defend-Deutsch mode. If I see Brett addressing any pending criticisms on X after all, I’ll update V accordingly.
I think that was the intention behind it, but its effect has been the opposite, to an extent. Hand-wavy referrals to explanations being HTV and rationality being synonymous with creativity, without explaining in detail how these things work, turn them into a black box that may as well work magically to give us the answers we want.
Being rational requires a criterion of rationality that is clear and precise enough so you know when you stray from it. HTV isn’t.
#5442·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 5 hours agoDirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV:
Rejecting essentialism doesn't grant your ideas immunity from clarification. Being vague is not something to be proud of.
By your standard, I could invent any bullshit property of explanations, call it "glorpiness" and when you ask what it means, reply that definitions miss the point.
Brett says HTV stands in opposition to mysticism.
#5454·Dennis HackethalOP, about 4 hours agoBrett replies saying “‘Hard To Vary’ is not vague. It is a real and useful solution to a philosophical problem. All actual scientific theories are hard to vary.”
He says it isn’t vague but then never gets specific about how to tell how hard to vary an explanation is or how to compare explanations this way. Instead, he mistakenly claims that isn’t the purpose of BoI, contrary to the evidence presented to him.
#5442·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 5 hours agoDirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV:
Rejecting essentialism doesn't grant your ideas immunity from clarification. Being vague is not something to be proud of.
By your standard, I could invent any bullshit property of explanations, call it "glorpiness" and when you ask what it means, reply that definitions miss the point.
Brett replies saying “‘Hard To Vary’ is not vague. It is a real and useful solution to a philosophical problem. All actual scientific theories are hard to vary.”
I reply that the actual explanation is that people who make progress participate in a tradition of criticism. They’re critical of ideas and try to address all (or almost all) known criticisms. That process may lead to ideas having the feature Brett calls hard to vary, but it’s strictly an effect of that critical activity, not its means.
I had previously linked Brett to my blog post containing that explanation. He liked that reply at the time so he’s definitely seen it, but he’s still ignoring it.
I reply that the actual explanation is that people who make progress participate in a tradition of criticism. They’re critical of ideas and try to address all (or almost all) known criticisms. That process may lead to ideas having the feature Brett calls hard to vary, but it’s strictly an effect of that critical activity, not its means.
I had previously linked Brett to my blog post containing that explanation. He liked that reply at the time so he’s definitely seen it, but he’s still ignoring it.
The actual explanation is that people who make progress participate in a tradition of criticism. They’re critical of ideas and try to address all (or almost all) known criticisms.
I had previously linked Brett to my blog post containing that explanation. He liked that reply at the time so he’s definitely seen it, but he’s still ignoring it.
I reply that the actual explanation is that people who make progress participate in a tradition of criticism. They’re critical of ideas and try to address all (or almost all) known criticisms. That process may lead to ideas having the feature Brett calls hard to vary, but it’s strictly an effect of that critical activity, not its means.
I had previously linked Brett to my blog post containing that explanation. He liked that reply at the time so he’s definitely seen it, but he’s still ignoring it.
#5447·Dennis HackethalOP, about 5 hours agoBrett says “Denying that good explanations of the physical world are hard to vary leaves us with *no better explanation* of what has driven progress in science, history and reason broadly.”
The actual explanation is that people who make progress participate in a tradition of criticism. They’re critical of ideas and try to address all (or almost all) known criticisms.
I had previously linked Brett to my blog post containing that explanation. He liked that reply at the time so he’s definitely seen it, but he’s still ignoring it.
#5447·Dennis HackethalOP, about 5 hours agoBrett says “Denying that good explanations of the physical world are hard to vary leaves us with *no better explanation* of what has driven progress in science, history and reason broadly.”
By saying HTV is central to progress, Brett contradicts his previous claim (#5355) that HTV is just a feature of explanations.
#5442·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 5 hours agoDirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV:
Rejecting essentialism doesn't grant your ideas immunity from clarification. Being vague is not something to be proud of.
By your standard, I could invent any bullshit property of explanations, call it "glorpiness" and when you ask what it means, reply that definitions miss the point.
Brett says “Denying that good explanations of the physical world are hard to vary leaves us with *no better explanation* of what has driven progress in science, history and reason broadly.”
#5444·Dennis HackethalOP, about 5 hours agoBrett replies, among other things: “Calling it ‘bullshit’ doesn’t win the argument. People have been doing that kind of thing with Popper, falsification and conjectural knowledge since the 1930s.”
Brett’s response basically ignores existing criticisms and sounds like he’s lecturing people who haven’t read Deutsch or Popper. He’s forgotten that I’ve already corrected him on several misattributions of his to Popper and his misinterpretation of BoI re preference formation.
#5444·Dennis HackethalOP, about 5 hours agoBrett replies, among other things: “Calling it ‘bullshit’ doesn’t win the argument. People have been doing that kind of thing with Popper, falsification and conjectural knowledge since the 1930s.”
Dirk replies that he “called "glorpiness" bullshit, not HTV” nor Popper. Brett completely missed the point of Dirk’s argument.
#5442·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 5 hours agoDirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV:
Rejecting essentialism doesn't grant your ideas immunity from clarification. Being vague is not something to be proud of.
By your standard, I could invent any bullshit property of explanations, call it "glorpiness" and when you ask what it means, reply that definitions miss the point.
Brett replies, among other things: “Calling it ‘bullshit’ doesn’t win the argument. People have been doing that kind of thing with Popper, falsification and conjectural knowledge since the 1930s.”
Quote Dirk
Dirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV.
Dirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV:
Rejecting essentialism doesn't grant your ideas immunity from clarification. Being vague is not something to be proud of.
By your standard, I could invent any bullshit property of explanations, call it "glorpiness" and when you ask what it means, reply that definitions miss the point.
#5440·Dennis HackethalOP, about 5 hours agoNeil Hudson emphasizes that “the procedure by which HTV is implemented cannot itself become the authority that decides which criticisms count. Its criteria, classifications and outputs would themselves have to remain conjectural and open to independent criticism - including criticism not already licensed by the procedure itself. Otherwise HTV has ceased to be a fallible aid to criticism and has become a final epistemic tribunal.”
I reply:
The UI can show a *tentative* result. The result can change with more user input. All input remains criticizable.
The UI can show a *tentative* result. The result can change with more user input. All input remains criticizable. Again, I’m not looking for a criterion of truth or some guarantee of infallibility, which I know can’t exist. I’m looking for a criterion of rationality, which I know can: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054
The word “again” refers to my previous remarks about fallibility here.
#3069·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoMy critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
Neil Hudson emphasizes that “the procedure by which HTV is implemented cannot itself become the authority that decides which criticisms count. Its criteria, classifications and outputs would themselves have to remain conjectural and open to independent criticism - including criticism not already licensed by the procedure itself. Otherwise HTV has ceased to be a fallible aid to criticism and has become a final epistemic tribunal.”
#5436·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 5 hours agoNeil Hudson says the bounty “would require programming the creative process by which relevant variations are conjectured in the first place.”
I reply that “prompting users for creative input (within reason) would be fine, as the bounty states.”
#5436·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 5 hours agoNeil Hudson says the bounty “would require programming the creative process by which relevant variations are conjectured in the first place.”
I reply that “Variations are routinely programmed in genetic programming, no genuine creativity required.”
Link to Neil’s reply
Neil Hudson says the bounty “would require programming the creative process by which relevant variations are conjectured in the first place.”
Neil Hudson says the bounty “would require programming the creative process by which relevant variations are conjectured in the first place.”
#5434·Dennis HackethalOP, about 5 hours agoWhy is that a criticism of the bounty and not of HTV? If that’s what’s required to make HTV work, maybe HTV bit off more than it can chew.
Well, no, people do conjecture variations, and so could use HTV themselves, though maybe not program a computer to do it for them.
#5433·Dennis HackethalOP, about 5 hours agoNeil Hudson says the bounty “would require programming the creative process by which relevant variations are conjectured in the first place.”
Why is that a criticism of the bounty and not of HTV? If that’s what’s required to make HTV work, maybe HTV bit off more than it can chew.
#3069·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoMy critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
Neil Hudson says the bounty “would require programming the creative process by which relevant variations are conjectured in the first place.”
#5426·Dennis HackethalOP revised 1 day agoNeil replies fallibility means the criterion must be able to get answers wrong or not deliver an answer at all sometimes. And if that’s the case, not any pair should be needed. Otherwise, “reliably compare” would be a demand for infallibility.
More on the difference between a criterion of rationality and the demand for infallibility: #5336
#5430·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoSeveral people have replied to the bounty saying it’s asking for the wrong thing; that HTV is only about rejecting ETV explanations, and that it’s only one mode of criticism among many.
They’re confused about what BoI actually says about HTV. It says HTV is central to the enlightenment and all rationality, that people use it systematically, that we should choose between explanations based on how hard to vary they are, and so on. According to BoI, HTV is not just another mode of criticism. It’s the central mode explaining progress.
As I say here, I’m personally on board with adopting a weaker form of HTV (or really ETV) where we only treat it as one mode of criticism among many and reject explanations if they have arbitrary components. But again, that’s not what BoI says. The bounty is about taking BoI seriously and rehabilitating HTV as presented there.
#3069·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoMy critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
Several people have replied to the bounty saying it’s asking for the wrong thing; that HTV is only about rejecting ETV explanations, and that it’s only one mode of criticism among many.