7 ms·
> When Scott illustrates the Solomon conversation in section I, he's clearly talking about two largely overlapping categories which have different groundings an
by 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 agoSorry, 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 agoIronically, the article leads with a parable of some dork being overly tendentious about word definitions. Maybe you could give it another chance.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoMaybe 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 agoSounds like the irony was lost on you.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoI don't have much faith that you would be able to rephrase my argument. You're welcome to try, but so far every retort is against an argument I haven't made.
- woooooo 3y agoThere are so many wild, interesting, contradictory and overlapping concepts in the world. This article covers a few of them using normal people language. Arguing about niche academic word definitions is just so, so boring. An act of supreme mediocrity.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- feoren 3y ago> he can use big boy words You're not asking him to use "big boy" words, you're asking him to use your preferred set of terminology from a particular branch of philosophy that you happen to be familiar with, and fuck other philistines who haven't read exactly the same philosophy articles as you have. But of course, he should not use any words that you specifically are not already familiar with, otherwise he'd be a poser acting needlessly erudite. You want him to start from exactly where your specific mental model is and go from there, skipping all the parts you're already familiar with. Basically, you're the main character?