Activity
#5554·Jad Elmourad, about 11 hours agoAs I explained in #5553, the program operates on the user's current understanding of the explanation.
In this case, though, I think the green-hat example actually illustrates what it means for an explanation to be easy to vary.
Suppose my explanation really is “God causes the seasons while wearing one green hat,” and I genuinely think I can change that to two hats, three hats, a thousand hats, etc. without affecting the explanation at all. Then the number of hats is completely unconstrained by what I'm trying to explain. Nothing in the explanation tells me why it should be one rather than two or a thousand.
I would consider that a problem with the explanation, not with the HTV comparison. It's exactly the kind of arbitrariness that HTV is supposed to expose.
Of course, the program isn't going to enumerate infinitely many hats. It only works with the variations the user actually comes up with. But if I can keep producing arbitrary variations without affecting the explanatory argument, that seems like evidence that the explanation is easy to vary, not a reason to reject the method.
I would consider that a problem with the explanation, not with the HTV comparison. It's exactly the kind of arbitrariness that HTV is supposed to expose.
Yes but if the program is an accurate representation/use of HTV, then the program should expose it. The program asks the user for variations in service of exposing it. But that doesn’t work in this case. I think that’s a problem.