Very interesting. I’m wondering if such a classification has been discussed before or is it mostly original research?
Do you think that the discussion quality (how does one measure it?) on this forum would be improved if the participants consciously considered their statement’s taxonomy and clarified them to make their class as unambiguous as possible, or would it just make the discussion more cumbersome? For example, how do you classify your very first (meta-)claim: “None of them are falsifiable claims about the nature of reality.” Is it an opinion?
For example, how do you classify your very first (meta-)claim: “None of them are falsifiable claims about the nature of reality.” Is it an opinion?
The snarky answer: It’s not a falsifiable claim.
Any claim might be falsifiable if it is adequately specified, so that it becomes testable. If a claim, as stated, isn’t falsifiable, it might become so through specification. The author hints at this with:
“Justin Bieber sucks”. There are a few ways we could interpret this as shorthand for a different claim.
And some of the “different claims” may be falsifiable.
Ultimately, we could also take unfalsifiable claims as being expressions of some attitude. It’s only when we try to determine if they are “true” as applied to some reality “out there” that we run into trouble.
The value of the post is in practicing and developing the skill of ready identification of the whole class of claims that are not factual, i.e., not about reality aside from our judgments, opinions, estimations, theories, preferences, conclusions.
I’m wondering if such a classification has been discussed before or is it mostly original research?
Original research.
I think it’s pretty rare to read what I’d consider to be unambiguous attitude statements here on LW. I guess it might be worthwhile to call them out when they happen.
“None of them are falsifiable claims about the nature of reality.”
Hm. Well, in the post, I argued that the attitude/fact distinction is in the head of the speaker. Which means that my attitude statement examples are examples of the kind of things people say when they make attitude statements, not attitude statements themselves. So I guess maybe you’d have to find someone who endorsed the claims and ask them if there’s any empirical evidence that would change their mind, or something like that. (But what if the Atlas Shrugged person says yes, if I read a better book, I would change my mind?)
BTW, I’m not sure how to deal with mathematical truth, so I didn’t mention it.
Very interesting. I’m wondering if such a classification has been discussed before or is it mostly original research?
Do you think that the discussion quality (how does one measure it?) on this forum would be improved if the participants consciously considered their statement’s taxonomy and clarified them to make their class as unambiguous as possible, or would it just make the discussion more cumbersome? For example, how do you classify your very first (meta-)claim: “None of them are falsifiable claims about the nature of reality.” Is it an opinion?
The snarky answer: It’s not a falsifiable claim.
Any claim might be falsifiable if it is adequately specified, so that it becomes testable. If a claim, as stated, isn’t falsifiable, it might become so through specification. The author hints at this with:
And some of the “different claims” may be falsifiable.
Ultimately, we could also take unfalsifiable claims as being expressions of some attitude. It’s only when we try to determine if they are “true” as applied to some reality “out there” that we run into trouble.
The value of the post is in practicing and developing the skill of ready identification of the whole class of claims that are not factual, i.e., not about reality aside from our judgments, opinions, estimations, theories, preferences, conclusions.
Original research.
I think it’s pretty rare to read what I’d consider to be unambiguous attitude statements here on LW. I guess it might be worthwhile to call them out when they happen.
Hm. Well, in the post, I argued that the attitude/fact distinction is in the head of the speaker. Which means that my attitude statement examples are examples of the kind of things people say when they make attitude statements, not attitude statements themselves. So I guess maybe you’d have to find someone who endorsed the claims and ask them if there’s any empirical evidence that would change their mind, or something like that. (But what if the Atlas Shrugged person says yes, if I read a better book, I would change my mind?)
BTW, I’m not sure how to deal with mathematical truth, so I didn’t mention it.
Classifications tend to be definitions, which are yet another category of statements.