Search Ideas

Then the idea should be revised to adjust or exclude the criticized part(s).

But sometimes an idea has other content that shouldn’t be thrown out with the bathwater just because of some criticism that applies only to part of it.

… I don’t yet know how to reconcile that, nor do I have a satisfactory alternative theory or criticism to offer.

Do #2140 and its children help as an alternative theory?

As a reminder, at some point we will need to do some housekeeping because any criticisms of #2108 are probably also going to be criticisms #2109 and we want an intact criticism chain.

I’m marking this as a criticism so we don’t forget. And when we’re done with the housekeeping, we can say so in a counter-criticism to ‘check off’ that todo item.

… I don’t yet know how to reconcile that, nor do I have a satisfactory alternative theory or criticism to offer.

Does #2140 help as an alternative theory?

… I don’t yet know how to reconcile that, nor do I have a satisfactory alternative theory or criticism to offer.

You do know criticisms, see #2094.

We can criticize theories for lacking structure, resilience, depth, reach, etc. But again, if we want to avoid justificationism, theories that do have those attributes don’t get points for having them.

[L]abeling explanations as good or bad can itself be a form of positive argument.

Labeling them good, yes. But not labeling them bad.

Citations needed.

You retain that freedom. Veritula has no power over you. Being irrational is your prerogative (as long as you don’t violate anyone else’s consent in the process). Just don’t pretend to yourself or others that you’re being rational when you’re not.

You retain that freedom. Veritula has no power over you. Being irrational is your prerogative (as long as you don’t violate anyone else’s consent in the process).

You retain that freedom. Veritula has no power over you. Being irrational is your prerogative (as long as you’re not hurting anyone else in the process).

But I want to remain free to act on whim instead!

That would be a pending criticism.

Make a reasonable effort to make the criticism explicit so it can be brought into direct conflict with the parent idea and examined further. In the meantime, do consider it a pending criticism and don’t act on the parent idea. You can also submit a placeholder criticism saying something like ‘I have an inexplicit criticism of this idea.’

Well, if you were to open the letter anyway, and somebody criticized you for it, you could offer the following counter-criticisms: 1) you cannot be expected to adopt an idea while being prevented from entertaining it; 2) somebody artificially constructed a situation designed to abuse the literal content of the two rules in #2140 in order to violate their intention, which is to promote critical thinking and rationality; 3) just because ideas have no pending criticisms doesn’t mean you don’t get to question those ideas – otherwise no one could ever submit a first criticism.

Well, if you were to open the letter anyway, and somebody criticized you for it, you could offer the following counter-criticisms: 1) you cannot be expected to adopt an idea while being prevented from entertaining it; 2) somebody constructed a situation designed to abuse the literal content of the two rules in #2140 in order to violate their intention, which is to promote critical thinking and rationality; 3) just because ideas have no pending criticisms doesn’t mean you don’t get to question those ideas – otherwise no one could ever submit a first criticism.

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? Assume that it has no pending counter-criticisms. Have we constructed an unreadable letter?

Make a reasonable effort to make the criticism explicit so it can be brought into direct conflict with the idea and examined further.

What if I have an inexplicit criticism of the idea?

What if I have an inexplicit criticism of the idea?

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? It has no pending counter-criticisms, after all. Have we constructed an unreadable letter?

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? It has no pending counter-criticisms, after all.

You’d know it’s a DDoS long before reviewing all the contents. That amount of criticism in a short time is suspicious, so you’d investigate for signs of coordination. Companies investigating actual DDoSes don’t need to review every single request to know they’re being DDoS’ed. And no otherwise reasonable person could blame them if a few good requests get dropped during their defense efforts.

Yeah. You wouldn’t even know that what the criticism is before reading it.