I actually had a simpler process in mind: someone puts some words together in a way that sounds plausible and like it should mean something, and it becomes a kind of philosophy meme. Someone once asked me, “Do you think mathematics is discovered or invented?” In hindsight I don’t think anyone really had a clue what they meant by that dichotomy; it just had a profound-sounding ring to it.
I actually had a simpler process in mind: someone puts some words together in a way that sounds plausible and like it should mean something, and it becomes a kind of philosophy meme.
I’m reading them pretty much in sequence. Dissolving the Question was excellent, and I just commented there. Although it’s old, I feel this series of posts is the most critical, and also that there is much more to be said along these lines.
I’m not sure your mathematics example is accurately characterized, though—I would have guessed that the question arose from some historic tree-falling-in-a-forest discussion.
Quite possibly. However, I’ve noticed that even famous thinkers are very susceptible to this kind of error. Wittgenstein and Korzybski were some of the few I’m aware of that even seriously noted these kinds of semantic issues and tried to correct them systematically.
Once I get more comfortable here maybe I’ll write a post to make the case (as it may sound a little unbelievable at this point). I must say I’m thoroughly impressed with the level to which semantic issues have been appreciated here so far.
Thanks, I’m having a great time so far!
I actually had a simpler process in mind: someone puts some words together in a way that sounds plausible and like it should mean something, and it becomes a kind of philosophy meme. Someone once asked me, “Do you think mathematics is discovered or invented?” In hindsight I don’t think anyone really had a clue what they meant by that dichotomy; it just had a profound-sounding ring to it.
We’re fortunate that there are also examples of this in scientific history, where we have a better chance of seeing what went conceptually wrong.
By the way, are you doing this in sequence, or have you read later posts yet? Dissolving the Question is pretty much exactly on this topic, and Righting a Wrong Question is also relevant.
I’m reading them pretty much in sequence. Dissolving the Question was excellent, and I just commented there. Although it’s old, I feel this series of posts is the most critical, and also that there is much more to be said along these lines.
You can introduce yourself in the comments to “Welcome to LessWrong”.
I’m not sure your mathematics example is accurately characterized, though—I would have guessed that the question arose from some historic tree-falling-in-a-forest discussion.
Quite possibly. However, I’ve noticed that even famous thinkers are very susceptible to this kind of error. Wittgenstein and Korzybski were some of the few I’m aware of that even seriously noted these kinds of semantic issues and tried to correct them systematically.
Once I get more comfortable here maybe I’ll write a post to make the case (as it may sound a little unbelievable at this point). I must say I’m thoroughly impressed with the level to which semantic issues have been appreciated here so far.
Is it up?
I’ll look forward to it.