Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#2586·Dennis Hackethal revised about 1 month agoTo rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
#2586·Dennis Hackethal revised about 1 month agoTo rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
In that case, I would agree with the second part of #2544 – just because something solves a problem doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to be true, yes – but the first part is still wrong, IMO: “So there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge.” There is, just not infallibly.
It certainly (pun intended) does not follow that all our knowledge contains errors, as you originally wrote.
To rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
To rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."
#2564·Benjamin Davies, about 2 months agoThank you for sharing this. I missed this in my read of BoI, and I agree now that Deutsch is wrong on this point.
Separate from Deutsch and going forward with our own epistemological practices, I think it would be appropriate for us to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’. This eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.
… us[ing] terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’ … eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.
Remembering and using the new meaning would take practice and effort. Why not just go with ‘has pending criticisms’ and ‘has no pending criticisms’ (or ‘problematic’ and ‘unproblematic’ for short)?
#2564·Benjamin Davies, about 2 months agoThank you for sharing this. I missed this in my read of BoI, and I agree now that Deutsch is wrong on this point.
Separate from Deutsch and going forward with our own epistemological practices, I think it would be appropriate for us to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’. This eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.
[We should continue] to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’.
There are risks to changing the meaning of established, recognized terms. It could confuse newcomers to this forum who are familiar with Deutsch’s terminology.
#2569·Erik Orrje, about 2 months agoBetween two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).
I think so, yeah. But it’s been years since I watched DD’s talk on propositions. I’d have to re-watch it to give you a more competent answer.
I ask Chicagoans their thoughts on reason and rationality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUS8dMGOF4
#2572·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoBug: tooltips sometimes don’t disappear. They should disappear when the user stops hovering over the element that triggered the tooltip.
Fixed as of f7833c6.
Bug: tooltips sometimes don’t disappear. They should disappear when the user stops hovering over the element that triggered the tooltip.
#2160·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoPeople could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
In a way, reactions might have epistemological relevance.
If an idea has pending criticisms, it can still have parts worth saving in a revision. Reactions based on paragraphs (#2458) could point out those parts.
#2160·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoPeople could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
The red “Criticized” label is far more prominent than reactions would be.
#2547·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoFeature idea: selecting some text, then hitting ‘Comment’, automatically pastes a quote of the selected text into the textarea, Telegram style, with the proper Markdown formatting.
Done as of 7061786.
#2109·Edwin de Wit revised 2 months ago@dennis-hackethal you have regularly pointed out to me that it’s a mistake to assign strengths or weaknesses to arguments—for example, in #1809 and #1927. I’d love to get to the bottom of that.
On one hand, I see what you mean. A criticism can either be counter-criticized or it can be an unresolved error. If it’s a bad criticism, you quickly counter it—say, by clarifying why it’s irrelevant—and move on.
I also see why talking about a “gradient” or comparative strength between arguments is problematic: there’s no objective criterion to measure them against. We can only say one theory is better than another when both attempt to explain the same phenomenon—then we can evaluate them using properties such as hard-to-varyness and other criteria Deutsch describes. (We can get into that if you’d like, though I don’t think that’s our main disagreement.). But this comparison doesn’t apply when we’re dealing with very different criticisms of a single idea, because there’s no common standard to measure them against. Comparing their “strength” becomes arbitrary.
However, I still think there are good and bad criticisms, just as there are good and bad explanations (following Deutsch’s distinction: for instance, bad explanations are easy to vary or point to authorities to justify themselves rather than offering a hard-to-vary account of how and why something works). While I could simply counter-criticize bad criticisms and move on, there’s also the matter of efficiency and opportunity cost: I don’t want to waste time repeatedly countering poor criticisms, or worse, get stuck in circular debates with people who don’t recognize that some arguments aren’t good criticisms at all. I’d rather focus my attention on good criticisms.
To clarify what I mean, here’s an excerpt from my book:
The most important principle to remember while criticizing is: Criticize, don’t defend or attack. Good explanations invite criticism of their intrinsic content—whether the explanation itself works, solves the problem, and avoids worse side effects. Bad explanations, by contrast, deflect criticism onto irrelevant, extrinsic properties such as authority or track record—e.g., “this is the method that successful company X uses,” “I believe strongly in this approach,” or “it’s coming from person Y, so it’s worthless.”
That kind of “criticism” isn’t real criticism at all. It’s just attacking or defending. And when we play that game, the explanation itself stays untouched and stagnant. The idea doesn’t get scrutinized or improved—it only gets shielded or dismissed for irrelevant reasons.That being said, I agree with the points you brought up in #2061, namely that there can be no positive arguments for an idea. By extension, if Veritula would require a specific format or mode of criticism, we’d fall into the very error Popper warns about with the Myth of the Framework—the mistaken belief that criticism requires a shared framework or language. So, Veritula should functionally remain as it is. At most, you might consider adding guidelines on what constitutes good versus poor criticism, so that critics can improve their skills. But I agree: the person who created the idea should remain solely responsible for addressing the criticisms they receive, not dismissing them as “bad” and moving on.
Tagging @bart-vanderhaegen because he and I have discussed this at length—in fact, I got the defending/attacking framing from him.
… I still think there are good and bad criticisms …
To conclude that a criticism is bad, we first need counter-criticisms. Otherwise, we have no reasons for considering a criticism bad. And once we have those reasons in the form of counter-criticisms, we can just state them.
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.
"that"
Why is this word in quotes? If you mean to emphasize, use asterisks.
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.
Since you’re voicing a disagreement, this idea should presumably be marked as a criticism.
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.
… there is no difference between what I said and what you said.
Unclear what “what I said” and “what you said” refer to. Quotes
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.
than
Should be ‘then’. I remind you to run your ideas through Grammarly before posting.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.
Feature idea: selecting some text, then hitting ‘Comment’, automatically pastes a quote of the selected text into the textarea, Telegram style, with the proper Markdown formatting.
#2544·Dennis Hackethal revised about 2 months agoSo there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge. It may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true.
You can still tell whether some knowledge is true. You just can’t tell infallibly, ie with absolute certainty. There is a difference between certainty and knowledge.
A contradiction is a type of problem
So in a way, there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge, it may work in solving a problem or a contradiction, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true.
So there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge. It may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true.
So in a way, there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge, they may work in solving a problem or a contradiction, but that doesn't guarantee that those statements are true.
So in a way, there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge, it may work in solving a problem or a contradiction, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true.
#2533·Benjamin Davies revised about 2 months agoIf “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.
If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)
Do you have a quote of Edwin saying good = not bad?
#2533·Benjamin Davies revised about 2 months agoIf “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)
If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.
Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.
We could try to save Deutsch’s terminology this way, sure. But I don’t think that’s what he means. He sees room for different gradations of ‘good’. For example, from BoI ch. 9:
[W]e should choose between policies not on the basis of their origin, but according to how good they are as explanations: how hard to vary.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.