I honestly think it would be imprudent of me to give more examples of [what I think are] ontology pyramid schemes; readers would either parse them as laughable foibles of the outgroup, and thus write off my meta-level point as trivial, or feel aggressed and compelled to marshal soldiers against my meta-level point to dispute a perceived object-level attack on their ingroup’s beliefs.
I think [something like] this [implicit] reasoning is likely why the Sequences are around as sparse as this post is on examples, and I think it’s wise that they were written that way.
To your second:
There’s nothing logically against an ontology that’s true being the subject of a pyramid scheme, any more than there’s anything logically against the bogus widgets a physical pyramid scheme is selling, actually being inordinately useful. It just generally doesn’t happen.
Could you give some examples of ontology pyramid schemes?
Also, can ontologies that are actually true, be the subject of pyramid schemes, as you define them?
To your first question:
I honestly think it would be imprudent of me to give more examples of [what I think are] ontology pyramid schemes; readers would either parse them as laughable foibles of the outgroup, and thus write off my meta-level point as trivial, or feel aggressed and compelled to marshal soldiers against my meta-level point to dispute a perceived object-level attack on their ingroup’s beliefs.
I think [something like] this [implicit] reasoning is likely why the Sequences are around as sparse as this post is on examples, and I think it’s wise that they were written that way.
To your second:
There’s nothing logically against an ontology that’s true being the subject of a pyramid scheme, any more than there’s anything logically against the bogus widgets a physical pyramid scheme is selling, actually being inordinately useful. It just generally doesn’t happen.