The spirit of the Fun Criterion
See full discussionLog in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.Cool, appreciate it. Since you agree and plan to be more precise, should this really be marked as a criticism?
Yeah, it doesn’t feel like a real criticism. I’m just trying to figure out the right way to resolve this thread. You’ve raised other criticisms focused on the content of my explanations—those make sense to keep open. But this thread, about my English possibly being a problem, doesn’t seem like a relevant or substantive criticism. I've claimed that my inaccuracies come more from carelessness than from a lack of comprehension of the language, and that doesn’t feel like a criticism of the ideas we’re discussing. So what should we do with this thread?
Since you asked, I suggest you do both of the following:
- Submit a criticism of #1731, suggesting that your English is off topic because the carelessness you suggest caused your typos had no effect on your choice of new terminology (‘Statements’ etc).
- Since you agree that #1738 is not a criticism, revise it to unmark it as a criticism. At the bottom of the revision form, uncheck #1799 to indicate that it does not apply anymore.
But this thread, about my English possibly being a problem, doesn’t seem like a relevant or substantive criticism.
As I’ve pointed out previously, I wouldn’t try to assign strengths (or ‘substantiveness’) to arguments.
Any criticism no matter how small destroys its target decisively if unaddressed. Whether or not its decisive is determined by whether or not there are any counter-criticisms, not by assigning some strength score (a remnant of justificationism). A criticism is decisive as long as there are no counter-criticisms. In the absence of counter-criticisms, how could it not be decisive?
In the current situation, this epistemology is actually to your benefit because, if some idea (such as #1731) is off topic, simply pointing this out in a criticism completely neutralizes the idea you deem off topic.
If a criticism really is tiny (or ‘weak’), it’s easier to just correct the error it points to than to counter-criticize. (For example, it’s usually quicker to fix a typo than to argue about the merits of pointing out typos.)
This is how Veritula is built. If you have an epistemological disagreement about its functionality or want to continue this broader epistemological discussion, submit an idea or criticism in ‘How Does Veritula Work?’.