Wow, this is exactly the type of feedback I wanted, thank you!
I’ve changed my view on this, and my current model is the frame “I can prove anything in the set A because of reason X”
Like I can prove a certain set of facts about Natural numbers using induction, but to claim that induction proves all things about Real numbers or morality or… is proving too much.
I would rewrite the post to focus on questions regarding that such as:
What set of claims do you think reason X proves?
How do you know that reason X proves those types of claims?
(And of course figure out how to phrase these things more tactfully)
Also, I’ve also enjoyed Thinking Physics and TurnTrout’s AU sequence type questions over my “pattern match to low-status belief” ones (I do like my generalization and algorithm question though), so I think I understand your point there.
Wow, this is exactly the type of feedback I wanted, thank you!
I’ve changed my view on this, and my current model is the frame “I can prove anything in the set A because of reason X”
Like I can prove a certain set of facts about Natural numbers using induction, but to claim that induction proves all things about Real numbers or morality or… is proving too much.
I would rewrite the post to focus on questions regarding that such as:
What set of claims do you think reason X proves?
How do you know that reason X proves those types of claims? (And of course figure out how to phrase these things more tactfully)
Also, I’ve also enjoyed Thinking Physics and TurnTrout’s AU sequence type questions over my “pattern match to low-status belief” ones (I do like my generalization and algorithm question though), so I think I understand your point there.