Activity Feed
If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew a certain part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.
If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew some part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.
#2593·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 11 days agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew a certain part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.
Now you’re using the word ‘certain’ with two different meanings, which is confusing. You could replace the second instance, “a certain”, with ‘some’ or just ‘a’.
If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then 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.
If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew a certain part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.
Still, I don’t see why you’d use quotation marks for that. They don’t seem to be scare quotes, and they’re not a literal quote either.
I meant to refer to anything that you know to be true.
I meant to refer to anything that you know to be true.
#2586·Dennis Hackethal revised 11 days 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 11 days 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, 12 days 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, 12 days 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, 12 days 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.
#2579·Benjamin Davies revised 12 days agoIt is one thing to explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
Yes. But again, because it solves certain problems with existing money. There could similarly be good and bad explanations why certain religions would spread in the future.
#2574·Benjamin Davies, 12 days agoMoney needs to be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.
Features that support a price floor create the conditions where one can expect that their wealth won’t completely evaporate for one reason or another. Something that has no features supporting a price floor is not good money.
If gold no longer has features supporting a price floor at some point in the future (as you claim might happen), then gold would also not be good money in that future.
Zcash has nothing going for it that makes it a store of value. To the degree that it is ‘worth’ anything in the future, it is because of the dynamics I refer to in #2497.
I agree that it would be optimal if Zcash and Bitcoin had such price floors. But couldn't it still be the best alternative in certain jurisdictions, e.g. where it's impossible/impractical to own gold, and the local currency gets inflated away?
removed incorrect use of “retroactively, and added emphasis
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
It is one thing to explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
typo
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular good spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
#2568·Erik OrrjeOP, 12 days agoIt is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
I could still see someone with knowledge of psychology and theology provide a good explanation as to why certain gods and religions have spread in favour of others. All ideas are solutions to some problem.
It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular good spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
#2567·Erik OrrjeOP, 12 days agoThe part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
There's never an arbitrary amount of solutions to a specific problem. In this case, the problems are the centralisation and the lack of privacy of our current money. They may not be problems for you specifically (e.g. if you live in a high-trust jurisdiction), but I'd like to hear arguments as to why nobody in the world would consider them problems.
I don’t deny that Zcash might be decentralised and private.
For Zcash to become the next money, it is not sufficient for it to just be durable, fungible, private, decentralised, etc.
As long as it doesn’t have any underlying value, it will not be suitable as money.
You are using secondary attributes of good money as positive justifications for Zcash as good money, but you are failing to answer the criticism that Zcash has no underlying value.
#2566·Erik OrrjeOP, 12 days agoValue comes from solving a problem.
Money solves (among other things) the problem of barter by being a medium of exchange. Different media solve this problem better than others. That determines its value.
I still don't see why there has to be a price floor set by the commodity's utility (for other things than being money)? Also, the value could still go to zero if that utility was no longer needed: Gold isn't guaranteed to be valued in industry or jewellry in the future.
Money needs to be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.
Features that support a price floor create the conditions where one can expect that their wealth won’t completely evaporate for one reason or another. Something that has no features supporting a price floor is not good money.
If gold no longer has features supporting a price floor at some point in the future (as you claim might happen), then gold would also not be good money in that future.
Zcash has nothing going for it that makes it a store of value. To the degree that it is ‘worth’ anything in the future, it is because of the dynamics I refer to in #2497.
I ask Chicagoans their thoughts on reason and rationality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUS8dMGOF4
#2572·Dennis HackethalOP, 12 days 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, about 1 month 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, about 1 month 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.
#2417·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days agoAre you asking if there can be correspondence between two abstractions? Or between a physical object and an abstraction?
Between two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).