What this post about politeness all along? I thought it was about efficient communication.
“a cluster of chemicals the central examples of which require industrial manufacturing processes to create, did not exist before the 20th century, are not part of any culture’s traditional way of doing things, could not be manufactured in a home kitchen, and bear little resemblance to petroleum, corn, or soybeans in spite of being derived from them.”
The part about cultures cuts out way too much, I think. The part about home kitchen, seems dubious, I suspect some “chemicals” are quite easy to make, though I don’t know. The part about 20th century could work.
But then it remains to ask whether “I avoid eating chemicals”, is any more reasonable than “I avoid eating yellow food”. Can we use the fact that a chemical was first synthesized in the 20th century, to predict something about that chemical?
Politeness is often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
I attempted to describe the central examples of a similarity cluster; not everything in a similarity cluster will have all the traits associated with that cluster. (“Ten fingers” is part of the human similarity cluster, but some humans have nine fingers.)
It might be silly to have a “I don’t eat yellow food” diet, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the concept of yellow. Indeed, I would argue that there are far more concepts that do not provide good diet advice than concepts which do.
Politeness is often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
Rudeness is also often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
It might be silly to have a “I don’t eat yellow food” diet, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the concept of yellow.
I admit, the complaints “chemical isn’t a natural category” and “avoiding chemicals is a silly diet” are distinct. But somehow it makes sense for me to say the former when I also think the latter. I think, the fact that the category isn’t natural makes the diet sillier. E.g. if someone said “I don’t eat meat (for non-moral reasons)”, I may still think they’re being silly, but at least I can imagine possible worlds where that diet would make sense. On the other hand, “I don’t eat meat from animals with 3 toes”, is on a whole different order of magnitude of silliness.
What do you mean by “works well”? Getting positive responses from real people? I doubt it, but I don’t think I’ve ever explained it like this to anyone. I don’t do the “everything is chemicals” reply that often in the first place.
I wouldn’t be surprised there was some Bible verse about how it is a sin to eat meat from animals with 3 toes. Religions tend to have diet advice which is “silly” by your definition.
What this post about politeness all along? I thought it was about efficient communication.
The part about cultures cuts out way too much, I think. The part about home kitchen, seems dubious, I suspect some “chemicals” are quite easy to make, though I don’t know. The part about 20th century could work.
But then it remains to ask whether “I avoid eating chemicals”, is any more reasonable than “I avoid eating yellow food”. Can we use the fact that a chemical was first synthesized in the 20th century, to predict something about that chemical?
Politeness is often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
I attempted to describe the central examples of a similarity cluster; not everything in a similarity cluster will have all the traits associated with that cluster. (“Ten fingers” is part of the human similarity cluster, but some humans have nine fingers.)
It might be silly to have a “I don’t eat yellow food” diet, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the concept of yellow. Indeed, I would argue that there are far more concepts that do not provide good diet advice than concepts which do.
Rudeness is also often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
I admit, the complaints “chemical isn’t a natural category” and “avoiding chemicals is a silly diet” are distinct. But somehow it makes sense for me to say the former when I also think the latter. I think, the fact that the category isn’t natural makes the diet sillier. E.g. if someone said “I don’t eat meat (for non-moral reasons)”, I may still think they’re being silly, but at least I can imagine possible worlds where that diet would make sense. On the other hand, “I don’t eat meat from animals with 3 toes”, is on a whole different order of magnitude of silliness.
Interesting—to rephrase, you’re saying that you might react this way as part of a reductio-ad-absurdum argument? Seems reasonable, does it work well?
What do you mean by “works well”? Getting positive responses from real people? I doubt it, but I don’t think I’ve ever explained it like this to anyone. I don’t do the “everything is chemicals” reply that often in the first place.
I wouldn’t be surprised there was some Bible verse about how it is a sin to eat meat from animals with 3 toes. Religions tend to have diet advice which is “silly” by your definition.