Can you say more about what makes criticism “constructive” vs. “non-constructive”? If the idea is that constructive criticism proposes solutions (here’s how the thing could be better) rather than just pointing out problems (here’s why the thing is bad), then requiring criticism to be constructive seems bad, because if critics have to propose a solution at the same time that they point out a problem, that prevents pointing out problems that don’t have an immediately apparent solution (but for which a solution might be found in time with further discussion).
I don’t have a comprehensive definition of constructive criticism—I know it when I see it. Presenting solutions is not necessary for constructive criticism.
To take a stab at defining it, constructive criticism is about optimizing the alignment between proposed methods and true goals given the resources available. Non-constructive criticism may be actively worsening the alignment, but it could also just be inefficient. The risk of inefficiency is the issue I’ve been pointing out above.
I don’t have a comprehensive definition of constructive criticism—I know it when I see it.
Without claiming that this is necessarily un-virtuous, I hope that you can see how this sort of thing is evidence for the claim that “constructive criticism” is not primarily a good criterion for truth-seeking, but rather is primarily a weapon for suppression of criticism.
To take a stab at defining it, constructive criticism is about optimizing the alignment between proposed methods and true goals given the resources available.
I confess that I have no idea what exactly you could mean by this. I think that it would be most helpful if you could supplement this intensional definition with an extensional one.
Can you say more about what makes criticism “constructive” vs. “non-constructive”? If the idea is that constructive criticism proposes solutions (here’s how the thing could be better) rather than just pointing out problems (here’s why the thing is bad), then requiring criticism to be constructive seems bad, because if critics have to propose a solution at the same time that they point out a problem, that prevents pointing out problems that don’t have an immediately apparent solution (but for which a solution might be found in time with further discussion).
I don’t have a comprehensive definition of constructive criticism—I know it when I see it. Presenting solutions is not necessary for constructive criticism.
To take a stab at defining it, constructive criticism is about optimizing the alignment between proposed methods and true goals given the resources available. Non-constructive criticism may be actively worsening the alignment, but it could also just be inefficient. The risk of inefficiency is the issue I’ve been pointing out above.
Without claiming that this is necessarily un-virtuous, I hope that you can see how this sort of thing is evidence for the claim that “constructive criticism” is not primarily a good criterion for truth-seeking, but rather is primarily a weapon for suppression of criticism.
I confess that I have no idea what exactly you could mean by this. I think that it would be most helpful if you could supplement this intensional definition with an extensional one.