Sorry you got down voted so much; I think this is a pretty solid introduction to the topic (although I find the presentation style weird for my own tastes, but I recognize it as following a pattern that others like a lot). LW is unfortunately pretty hostile to continental philosophy (and a little hostile to philosophy in general, which is strange for a place that cares so much about epistemology) for reasons I perceive to be mostly tribal, although the most vociferous commenters against those topics would disagree and give reasons why continental philosophy is contrary to LW-style rationality. I think that’s a shame because you hit on some points that I think folks around here would be well served to explore more, like irreducibility and the problems for science caused by its embeddedness in itself and inability to adequately consider its own methods.
I think it mostly got downvotes because it seemed self-promotional and confusing. I definitely downvoted it before reading it in-depth, mostly by pattern-matching it to the spam or crackpots we get here every day or two. Rereading it, and with the new edits, it actually seems pretty ok and I small-upvoted it.
Hey, I’m right up to minus 19 - that’s put a smile on my face. Thank you for bringing some balance to the force.
I do sort of understand the antagonism—people in the community want to protect the quality of the content which the community is generating. They value the comradeship of shared values, etiquette, assumptions, agreed-upon starting points for conversations, and so on. Noobs just don’t get it. Noobs are a threat to that. In the first instance, given the reputation, I was surprised that I was allowed to post on here at all without having some established credentials. I mean, I do have a few credentials, but nobody made me provide them.
If I had thought more before just jumping in, I could have been more careful. Perhaps I should have started by commenting rather than posting. Dunno. They could actually enforce that as a way of smoothing the path, maybe. On the other hand, perhaps it’s a fun sport letting noobs stumble around and watching them get burned. Smirk.
I do think it is a very interesting investigation how to design and manage public thinking so that the best possible outcomes are delivered—partly why I wanted to explore playing on here, so as to get some insight into that.
Quite apart from my own adequacies or inadequacies I think there is an interesting debate to be had been LW-style rationality and the thinking that swirls around Heidegger. (Heidegger as like a whirl wind that sucked in Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and the whole tradition and sprayed out a whole legacy of subsequent thinkers and tryers.) I wonder if later Wittgenstein could help provide a bridge.
I like the SEP as much as the next guy, and I didn’t downvote your post, but your approach strikes me as unprepared. Have you read Luke’s sequence? It crystallizes the position that you’re trying to argue against, and you’d get more upvotes by arguing against it directly.
I agree about being unprepared. I didn’t expect so much attention—if any. I write endless articles on Medium in a variety of styles, including poetry, and answer questions on Quora, and mostly just get ignored. At one time a few years ago, when blogging was popular, I had about eight blogs which I posted on regularly, and got a total of about one one-sentence response comment per month—and quite often that was from someone wanting to sell me viagra. (I don’t know who they’d been talking to.)
Although I have been editors choice on Poetbay 3 times—which I am proud of. Being down-voted about Heidegger is a new high for me.
Here’s something I’ve wanted to say for a while (don’t take it personally, it’s not only about you):
Sometimes people will comment with short snipes that sound like they have some bigger argument in mind, but don’t want to state it right away and prefer to open with a snipe. That’s frustrating—I want to engage with a full argument, not half of one. Over time I’ve learned to avoid replying to these “half an argument” comments. They usually lead to a long back and forth where the other person never quite says what they believe, and nothing interesting comes of it.
One reason Scott Alexander is so fun to read is because he goes the extra mile in the opposite direction. If he believes that A is wrong, he doesn’t post a one-liner question about A and wait for people to reply. Instead, he says A is wrong and B is right, because of arguments X and Y, and acknowledges opposing argument Z. I think that’s a good way to get engagement: instead of sniping, say what you believe about the topic and why.
I was struggling go see the the relevance of Lukeprogs sequence to Andrews posting. He attacks a notion of conceptual analysis that isn’t very relevant to Heidegger. He attacks intuitions, without answering the hard problem of how to manage without them entirely. He attacks philosophy without showing a better way of dealing with the same questions.
Something that pisses me off is alluding to sequences in a vague sweeping way. They don’t have to answer the question, just be on a similar topic
One-line comments are low-effort..including “read the sequences”.
For a question like “the nature of being”, I guess Luke would try to dissolve the question by looking at how it arises in our brains or something. You could say we don’t know enough about brains yet, but that doesn’t mean intuitions are a better way—they just give garbage.
Yes, you’re exactly on point. I’ve often thought that we shouldn’t be trigger-happy about dissolving questions. It’s possible that “nature of being” has a real answer and shouldn’t be dissolved. But I’m pretty sure we would need a new attack for that, because I have zero faith in the attack used by Heidegger. Why do you have faith in it?
(The idea of “attack” comes from this talk by Hamming. It’s central to all my thinking about thinking.)
Sorry you got down voted so much; I think this is a pretty solid introduction to the topic (although I find the presentation style weird for my own tastes, but I recognize it as following a pattern that others like a lot). LW is unfortunately pretty hostile to continental philosophy (and a little hostile to philosophy in general, which is strange for a place that cares so much about epistemology) for reasons I perceive to be mostly tribal, although the most vociferous commenters against those topics would disagree and give reasons why continental philosophy is contrary to LW-style rationality. I think that’s a shame because you hit on some points that I think folks around here would be well served to explore more, like irreducibility and the problems for science caused by its embeddedness in itself and inability to adequately consider its own methods.
I think it mostly got downvotes because it seemed self-promotional and confusing. I definitely downvoted it before reading it in-depth, mostly by pattern-matching it to the spam or crackpots we get here every day or two. Rereading it, and with the new edits, it actually seems pretty ok and I small-upvoted it.
Hey, I’m right up to minus 19 - that’s put a smile on my face. Thank you for bringing some balance to the force.
I do sort of understand the antagonism—people in the community want to protect the quality of the content which the community is generating. They value the comradeship of shared values, etiquette, assumptions, agreed-upon starting points for conversations, and so on. Noobs just don’t get it. Noobs are a threat to that. In the first instance, given the reputation, I was surprised that I was allowed to post on here at all without having some established credentials. I mean, I do have a few credentials, but nobody made me provide them.
If I had thought more before just jumping in, I could have been more careful. Perhaps I should have started by commenting rather than posting. Dunno. They could actually enforce that as a way of smoothing the path, maybe. On the other hand, perhaps it’s a fun sport letting noobs stumble around and watching them get burned. Smirk.
I do think it is a very interesting investigation how to design and manage public thinking so that the best possible outcomes are delivered—partly why I wanted to explore playing on here, so as to get some insight into that.
Quite apart from my own adequacies or inadequacies I think there is an interesting debate to be had been LW-style rationality and the thinking that swirls around Heidegger. (Heidegger as like a whirl wind that sucked in Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and the whole tradition and sprayed out a whole legacy of subsequent thinkers and tryers.) I wonder if later Wittgenstein could help provide a bridge.
I like the SEP as much as the next guy, and I didn’t downvote your post, but your approach strikes me as unprepared. Have you read Luke’s sequence? It crystallizes the position that you’re trying to argue against, and you’d get more upvotes by arguing against it directly.
I agree about being unprepared. I didn’t expect so much attention—if any. I write endless articles on Medium in a variety of styles, including poetry, and answer questions on Quora, and mostly just get ignored. At one time a few years ago, when blogging was popular, I had about eight blogs which I posted on regularly, and got a total of about one one-sentence response comment per month—and quite often that was from someone wanting to sell me viagra. (I don’t know who they’d been talking to.)
Although I have been editors choice on Poetbay 3 times—which I am proud of. Being down-voted about Heidegger is a new high for me.
I’ll go read Luke’s sequence. :-)
What position do you think Andrew arguing against?
Here’s something I’ve wanted to say for a while (don’t take it personally, it’s not only about you):
Sometimes people will comment with short snipes that sound like they have some bigger argument in mind, but don’t want to state it right away and prefer to open with a snipe. That’s frustrating—I want to engage with a full argument, not half of one. Over time I’ve learned to avoid replying to these “half an argument” comments. They usually lead to a long back and forth where the other person never quite says what they believe, and nothing interesting comes of it.
One reason Scott Alexander is so fun to read is because he goes the extra mile in the opposite direction. If he believes that A is wrong, he doesn’t post a one-liner question about A and wait for people to reply. Instead, he says A is wrong and B is right, because of arguments X and Y, and acknowledges opposing argument Z. I think that’s a good way to get engagement: instead of sniping, say what you believe about the topic and why.
I was struggling go see the the relevance of Lukeprogs sequence to Andrews posting. He attacks a notion of conceptual analysis that isn’t very relevant to Heidegger. He attacks intuitions, without answering the hard problem of how to manage without them entirely. He attacks philosophy without showing a better way of dealing with the same questions.
Something that pisses me off is alluding to sequences in a vague sweeping way. They don’t have to answer the question, just be on a similar topic
One-line comments are low-effort..including “read the sequences”.
For a question like “the nature of being”, I guess Luke would try to dissolve the question by looking at how it arises in our brains or something. You could say we don’t know enough about brains yet, but that doesn’t mean intuitions are a better way—they just give garbage.
if intuitions are 100% garbage (not Luke’s actual conclusion) AND we can’t do without them, we are in a very bad situation.
Why do only certain questions get the dissolution treatment? Is there a formal criterion, or is it based on biased and intuition?
Yes, you’re exactly on point. I’ve often thought that we shouldn’t be trigger-happy about dissolving questions. It’s possible that “nature of being” has a real answer and shouldn’t be dissolved. But I’m pretty sure we would need a new attack for that, because I have zero faith in the attack used by Heidegger. Why do you have faith in it?
(The idea of “attack” comes from this talk by Hamming. It’s central to all my thinking about thinking.)
Versions of the “nature of being” question are relevant to things like MWI and the mathematical universe hypothesis.
I don’t, and I didn’t say I did. H. is one of my least favourite philosophers.