3 ms·

Rationalists really need a course in mid-century sociology/metaphysics, specifically grounding[1], typification, and reification. It's incredibly frustrating t

Rationalists really need a course in mid-century sociology/metaphysics, specifically grounding[1], typification, and reification. It's incredibly frustrating to watch them go on about being rational and also being only obliquely aware[2] of the patterns of behavior that sociologists have identified decades ago. When Scott illustrates the Solomon conversation in section I, he's clearly talking about two largely overlapping categories which have different groundings and those groundings are precisely the cause of the disagreement. Typification in particular is the subject of section II. And grounding again is the central focus of the rest of the sections on maps, gender, &c. Scott, in the unlikely event you read HN comments, I'm literally begging you to pick up Categories We Live By, Ásta[3]. Its 154 pages of non-dense explanation on grounding. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounding/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounding/ 2. Inferred by proxy. No mention of these terms by name, but oblique references to the shadows of their ideas. I'm sure there is some limited knowledge diffusion process taking place 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190256791.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190256791.001.0001

feoren 3y ago
> When Scott illustrates the Solomon conversation in section I, he's clearly talking about two largely overlapping categories which have different groundings and those groundings are precisely the cause of the disagreement. But the author is clearly aware of this; he just doesn't call it grounding. So your argument seems to be "rationalists aren't thinking about this correctly because they're not using the correct words that other people invented". Which I find deeply ironic given the subject of the post. A useful take might be "the difference between Soloman and the biologist is sometimes called grounding; here's some more info on it". But instead your take was "Rationalists are going on about something they don't understand and need to read more philosophy", which is arrogant and wrong. Nobody needs to read more philosophy; it does not actually help you think about the world in any way. Taking the first two sentences of your first link: > Consider the following claim: the truck drivers are engaged in a labor strike in virtue of picketing. What sort of claim is this? Who cares what sort of claim it is? Seriously? Why is that at all a useful question to ask? Here we are talking about categories and whether they're useful, and that link is saying "it's very very important that we categorize this claim correctly". No, it's not. That question does not help anyone come to the correct conclusion about life in any way. And then you come along with an addendum "and if you can't correctly categorize this claim, then you should not be discussing rationality." Come on.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Sorry, but I don't have time to wade through idiosyncratic terminology. Scott's a big boy, he can use big boy words. Besides, pawning off cognitive load on the reader is such a lowball move. > So your argument seems to be "rationalists aren't thinking about this correctly because they're not using the correct words that other people invented". You could always ask what my argument is. My claim is that we can cut to more interesting discussions by saying, "We're talking about the rationality of groundings. The utility/consistency/feelings/whatever the biologist gets out of scientific taxonomy grounding is X, and Solomon's utility/consistency/feelings/whatever in his groundings are Y." Saying basically, "groundings exist" isn't very insightful. Saying, "groundings are a product of Z" or "here's a framework for rational grounding creation" is actually interesting. Using the full palette of words allows us to get to these interesting discussions more quickly. If you disagree then I'll challenge you to reply in hulk-speak.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Ironically, the article leads with a parable of some dork being overly tendentious about word definitions. Maybe you could give it another chance.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Maybe I need to use hulk speak to get my point across. Use words better. Better words mean take less time with what things mean. Then we talk more fun stuff.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - woooooo 3y ago
        Sounds like the irony was lost on you.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago

feoren 3y ago

> When Scott illustrates the Solomon conversation in section I, he's clearly talking about two largely overlapping categories which have different groundings and those groundings are precisely the cause of the disagreement. But the author is clearly aware of this; he just doesn't call it grounding. So your argument seems to be "rationalists aren't thinking about this correctly because they're not using the correct words that other people invented". Which I find deeply ironic given the subject of the post. A useful take might be "the difference between Soloman and the biologist is sometimes called grounding; here's some more info on it". But instead your take was "Rationalists are going on about something they don't understand and need to read more philosophy", which is arrogant and wrong. Nobody needs to read more philosophy; it does not actually help you think about the world in any way. Taking the first two sentences of your first link: > Consider the following claim: the truck drivers are engaged in a labor strike in virtue of picketing. What sort of claim is this? Who cares what sort of claim it is? Seriously? Why is that at all a useful question to ask? Here we are talking about categories and whether they're useful, and that link is saying "it's very very important that we categorize this claim correctly". No, it's not. That question does not help anyone come to the correct conclusion about life in any way. And then you come along with an addendum "and if you can't correctly categorize this claim, then you should not be discussing rationality." Come on.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Sorry, but I don't have time to wade through idiosyncratic terminology. Scott's a big boy, he can use big boy words. Besides, pawning off cognitive load on the reader is such a lowball move. > So your argument seems to be "rationalists aren't thinking about this correctly because they're not using the correct words that other people invented". You could always ask what my argument is. My claim is that we can cut to more interesting discussions by saying, "We're talking about the rationality of groundings. The utility/consistency/feelings/whatever the biologist gets out of scientific taxonomy grounding is X, and Solomon's utility/consistency/feelings/whatever in his groundings are Y." Saying basically, "groundings exist" isn't very insightful. Saying, "groundings are a product of Z" or "here's a framework for rational grounding creation" is actually interesting. Using the full palette of words allows us to get to these interesting discussions more quickly. If you disagree then I'll challenge you to reply in hulk-speak.
- woooooo 3y ago
  Ironically, the article leads with a parable of some dork being overly tendentious about word definitions. Maybe you could give it another chance.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Maybe I need to use hulk speak to get my point across. Use words better. Better words mean take less time with what things mean. Then we talk more fun stuff.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Sounds like the irony was lost on you.
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago