Search Ideas

if somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.

Agreed. My point is that you can't refute a flaw by saying the flaw doesn't have a workable system to resolve it. "Your boat has a hole in it". "Yeah, well I don't have any way of fixing it". That doesn't resolve the criticism of the boat. If it's unfixable and a real flaw, you might just need a new boat.

Logically, yes. But in practice, it won’t be the same.

For example:

Idea A: ‘Newtonian gravity is true.’ → Has pending criticisms (some predictions don’t match observation).
Idea B: ‘Newtonian gravity is not true.’ → Also has pending criticisms: ‘Not helpful’; ‘Doesn’t tell us how gravity works’; etc.

Related: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-the-bayesian-philosophy-of-science/

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.

This sounds like a version of #2195, see criticism #2198.

Then the idea ‘I could either address that pending criticism or, if I fail to do that, look into all the other pending criticisms’ would have no pending criticisms.

Is rejecting an idea equivalent to adopting it's negation?

But what if the idea that you should be suspicious of a large volume of criticism in a short time has pending criticism itself?

An inability to improve on the criticized aspect of a system is not a refutation of that criticism.

This approach does not specify how long you should spend coming up with criticisms before adopting it, therefore it cannot be put into action as stated. The delay must be nonzero otherwise, the fresh idea "you should ignore criticisms" would nullify the system.

Now also available on PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/archive/HACTSO-6.pdf

I’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.

https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought

Rational Decision-Making

Expanding on #2112…

If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.

If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?

Or, simplified:

It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.

If you don’t have any counter-criticisms, how could the criticisms not be decisive?

To arrive at that conclusion, you’d first need some counter-criticism anyway.

Just how ‘tiny’ is a criticism then? By reference to what principle or measure?

To incorporate some notion of decisiveness or severity, we need to be prepared to program that into our decision-making tool. I’m not aware that anyone knows how to programmatically determine the severity or decisiveness of a criticism, and I suspect outsourcing it to the user would result in the same unintended behavior we saw with the sliders for hard to vary.

Ration … has pretty indirect relation with the common sense.

That’s fine. Common sense is often found to be wrong upon closer inspection. It’s rationality that helps us seek truth. Common sense says the sun rotates around the earth; rationality helped us understand why that isn’t the case.

How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing?

If you’re asking how rationality will help you figure out the right course of action: using the process outlined in #4471.

Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense.

That’s fine. Common sense is often found to be wrong upon closer inspection. It’s rationality that helps us seek truth. Common sense says the sun rotates around the earth; rationality helped us understand why that isn’t the case.

pretty often

So not all the time.

I see no perspective in communication with ones who found it discomfortable to retrospect frames of own perspective.

That isn’t what’s happening here. There are dozens of examples on V of me being self-critical.

You’re being passive aggressive, which further sabotages debate. You also ignored my request to take a break for a day or two, and to be less spammy (I just opened V to 16 new notifications from you after a short amount of time), contrary to your own statement that you see no point in discussing with me – which makes no sense.

I’m locking your account for a week. You may return in 7 days. If you then continue disregarding the forum rules, I will ban you permanently. Review them here: #4460

freedom of association

It doesn't appears out of nowhere. Freedom is the consequence of an ability to withstand, the power, resources to elaborate and protect such consensus, and maintain it. If you are ready to pay the price, and have the resources.

freedom of association

It doesn't appears out of nowhere. Freedom is the consequence of an ability to withstand, the power, resources to elaborate and protect such consensus, and maintain it.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains are still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). Also, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). Also, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.