I greatly appreciate transcripts. Thanks a lot. And this particular one is really interesting.
But I don’t think it’s an example of dissolving the question. He mainly seems to be (1) explaining why a topic is too complicated to talk about with precision to a layperson, and (2) giving names to the concepts that are the most complicated.
Question-dissolving is what to do when you’re confused, not just when you don’t know something. Confusion is what tells us there’s something wrong with the question; it’s a matter of the map, not the territory.
I think he’s implicitly answering a more important meta-question: when people ask “why”, they’re usually wanting a narrative explanation, and so scientific explanations are often found unsatisfying.
I greatly appreciate transcripts. Thanks a lot. And this particular one is really interesting.
But I don’t think it’s an example of dissolving the question. He mainly seems to be (1) explaining why a topic is too complicated to talk about with precision to a layperson, and (2) giving names to the concepts that are the most complicated.
Question-dissolving is what to do when you’re confused, not just when you don’t know something. Confusion is what tells us there’s something wrong with the question; it’s a matter of the map, not the territory.
I think he’s implicitly answering a more important meta-question: when people ask “why”, they’re usually wanting a narrative explanation, and so scientific explanations are often found unsatisfying.