Search Ideas
1806 ideas match your query.:
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.
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?
Ayn Rand’s book The Romantic Manifesto has 114 matches for the string ‘esthetic’ and no matches for the string ‘aesthetic’. Rand was a serious philosopher who did extensive work on art and (a)esthetics.
There’s also her talk ‘The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age’, though it may have been the Ayn Rand Institute that chose that spelling.
Justin says the term ‘esthetician’ from the esthetician industry “ruined that”.
I agree with the premise that small does not mean insignificant.
I don’t believe it’s a premise; I think it’s a conclusion because it follows from the situation described in #2070.
In the future, be sure to make clarifications as part of a revision and then uncheck the criticism you think the revision addresses. This is to avoid breaking criticism chains.
(You don’t need to make any further revisions in this specific case, though.)
There’s a related issue of disregarding ‘small’/‘weak’ criticisms: some criticisms may look small at first, but as you investigate, you realize they’re actually a big deal.
I realized this the other day on the topic of macOS UI bugs during a Twitter space. Somebody said that many of the issues I had pointed out with the new Tahoe OS were just minor UI glitches (in other words: ‘weak criticisms’). But then somebody else pointed out that those are still worrisome because severe security holes, like being able to bypass authentication, have presented as minor UI glitches in the past!