Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
Would be nice highlighting strings matching the query in search results.
As of 2d3d38f, system-generated ideas are excluded from search results. They can be included again by checking a new checkmark in the form.
Automatically generated ideas are polluting the search page.
#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’.
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.
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.
#2547·Dennis HackethalOP, 14 days agoFeature idea: selecting some text, then hitting ‘Comment’, automatically pastes a quote of the selected text into the textarea, Telegram style, with the proper Markdown formatting.
Done as of 7061786.
#2109·Edwin de Wit revised about 1 month ago@dennis-hackethal you have regularly pointed out to me that it’s a mistake to assign strengths or weaknesses to arguments—for example, in #1809 and #1927. I’d love to get to the bottom of that.
On one hand, I see what you mean. A criticism can either be counter-criticized or it can be an unresolved error. If it’s a bad criticism, you quickly counter it—say, by clarifying why it’s irrelevant—and move on.
I also see why talking about a “gradient” or comparative strength between arguments is problematic: there’s no objective criterion to measure them against. We can only say one theory is better than another when both attempt to explain the same phenomenon—then we can evaluate them using properties such as hard-to-varyness and other criteria Deutsch describes. (We can get into that if you’d like, though I don’t think that’s our main disagreement.). But this comparison doesn’t apply when we’re dealing with very different criticisms of a single idea, because there’s no common standard to measure them against. Comparing their “strength” becomes arbitrary.
However, I still think there are good and bad criticisms, just as there are good and bad explanations (following Deutsch’s distinction: for instance, bad explanations are easy to vary or point to authorities to justify themselves rather than offering a hard-to-vary account of how and why something works). While I could simply counter-criticize bad criticisms and move on, there’s also the matter of efficiency and opportunity cost: I don’t want to waste time repeatedly countering poor criticisms, or worse, get stuck in circular debates with people who don’t recognize that some arguments aren’t good criticisms at all. I’d rather focus my attention on good criticisms.
To clarify what I mean, here’s an excerpt from my book:
The most important principle to remember while criticizing is: Criticize, don’t defend or attack. Good explanations invite criticism of their intrinsic content—whether the explanation itself works, solves the problem, and avoids worse side effects. Bad explanations, by contrast, deflect criticism onto irrelevant, extrinsic properties such as authority or track record—e.g., “this is the method that successful company X uses,” “I believe strongly in this approach,” or “it’s coming from person Y, so it’s worthless.”
That kind of “criticism” isn’t real criticism at all. It’s just attacking or defending. And when we play that game, the explanation itself stays untouched and stagnant. The idea doesn’t get scrutinized or improved—it only gets shielded or dismissed for irrelevant reasons.That being said, I agree with the points you brought up in #2061, namely that there can be no positive arguments for an idea. By extension, if Veritula would require a specific format or mode of criticism, we’d fall into the very error Popper warns about with the Myth of the Framework—the mistaken belief that criticism requires a shared framework or language. So, Veritula should functionally remain as it is. At most, you might consider adding guidelines on what constitutes good versus poor criticism, so that critics can improve their skills. But I agree: the person who created the idea should remain solely responsible for addressing the criticisms they receive, not dismissing them as “bad” and moving on.
Tagging @bart-vanderhaegen because he and I have discussed this at length—in fact, I got the defending/attacking framing from him.
… I still think there are good and bad criticisms …
To conclude that a criticism is bad, we first need counter-criticisms. Otherwise, we have no reasons for considering a criticism bad. And once we have those reasons in the form of counter-criticisms, we can just state them.
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 14 days agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than 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.
"that"
Why is this word in quotes? If you mean to emphasize, use asterisks.
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 14 days agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than 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.
Since you’re voicing a disagreement, this idea should presumably be marked as a criticism.
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 14 days agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than 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.
… there is no difference between what I said and what you said.
Unclear what “what I said” and “what you said” refer to. Quotes
#2550·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 14 days agoIf you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than 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.
than
Should be ‘then’. I remind you to run your ideas through Grammarly before posting.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.
Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.