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.)
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.