Search Ideas
2065 ideas match your query.:
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.
What if I have an inexplicit criticism of the idea?
Yeah, thanks! Are ideas also guesses of how to survive in the mind and across substrates, or is there more to ideas?
Not necessarily. Maybe somebody just forgot to reply or doesn’t know what to say.
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.
The premise sounds contrived because you couldn’t have only that one idea in isolation. You’d have to know about letters, and reading them, and criticisms, and so on.
Attack means bad faith, which is a type of counter-criticism.
But not everyone will always use the platform in an ideal way, and I don’t want to make it easier for issues to compound.
That limits the scope of the problem but doesn’t eliminate it. A single recipient could still react in a distracting way.
Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes over multiple screens.
The rival theories and clashes sound like competition between genes – or more precisely, between the theories those genes embody.
Basically, genes contain guesses (in a non-subjective sense) for how to spread through the population at the expense of their rivals. Those guesses are met with selection pressure and competition.
How could we integrate that vision with Popper's definition (paraphrased): a tension, inconsistency, or unmet explanatory demand that arises when a theory clashes with observations, background assumptions, or rival theories, thereby calling for conjectural solutions and critical tests.
A gene doesn’t have problems in any conscious sense, but it always faces the problem of how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.
Maybe that answers your question, Erik.
Aaron Stupple, author of a parenting guide called The Sovereign Child, talks about how to raise your kids without making them do things they don’t want to do. I tell Stupple I wish I’d read his book when my son and daughter were young, and I mean it, Stupple strikes me as wise. But it bothers me that Stupple was inspired by Deutsch, who has no kids.
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/but-you-re-not-a-parent
Well, Tom wouldn’t drop the ‘a’ anyway because he’s British.
Then you can go with the more battle-tested one (see #1948). Or you can pick one at random. Doesn’t matter.
If an idea has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it.
What if there are multiple ideas with no pending criticisms?
If an idea does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it …
What if I want to adopt it anyway?
This criticism reminds me of a passage in Objective Knowledge, where Popper says some people defend ugly theories by claiming they’re tiny, like people do with ugly babies. Just because (you think) a criticism is tiny doesn’t mean it’s not ugly.
Popper didn’t say to correct some errors while ignoring others for no reason. He spoke of error correction, period.
That would itself be a criticism, but it would lead to an infinite regress: any leaf of the discussion tree would always get one criticism claiming that its advocacy is premature. But then the criticism would become the new leaf and would thus have to be criticized for the same reason, and so would every subsequent criticism, forever and ever.
Conversely, it would generally be irrational to reject it, consider it problematic, or act counter to it.
“generally”? So there are exceptions?