3 ms·

> And regarding your link and the very clever ontology it is based on: science is not composed only of the scientific method, it is also composed of human scien

by lisper 3y ago

> And regarding your link and the very clever ontology it is based on: science is not composed only of the scientific method, it is also composed of human scientists. And if one is to replace "the scientific method" with "scientists" in that piece, the truth value of all of the statements changes drastically. Yes, that's true. But I'm not defending scientists, I am defending science -- since you are demanding precision, I am defending the scientific method as described here: https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introduction-to.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introducti... BTW, I am not claiming that as original work, just a statement of what I am prepared to defend. So, assuming you've read that too, the answer to your question is: everything I say (and I do mean everything, including what I am saying right now) is a hypothesis. I have different degrees of confidence in difference hypotheses, ranging from ones that I have already rejected (in this thread I conflated Kant and Wittgenstein not once but twice) to those in which I have great confidence and am willing to give long odds against them being wrong. The hypotheses I've advanced above run the gamut, and the thread has been very long, so I'm not going to go through it all and assign confidence levels to everything I've said. If there's something specific you want to know, you'll have to ask about it specifically. I will say this though: I'm pretty sure you are confusing motte-and-bailey on the one hand, and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts on the other. This is an HN comment thread whose main topic is the death of another human being. That calls for a very different approach than a technical paper for publication. Most people understand this implicitly. Apparently you don't. And before you respond to that, you should re-read the preceding paragraph very, very carefully because unlike you, I do learn from my mistakes (or at least I try), and so I am now choosing every word I write to you with exquisite care.

mistermann 3y ago
> So, assuming you've read that too, the answer to your question is: everything I say (and I do mean everything, including what I am saying right now) is a hypothesis. See, was that so hard? Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach? I mean, you seem smart enough, and you certainly have the self-confidence. > I will say this though: I'm pretty sure you are confusing motte-and-bailey on the one hand, and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts on the other. Would you like to try proving out your hypothesis while I shoot holes in it, like one shoots fish in a barrel? In this case I would start here: "pretty sure" "you" "and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts" "the" "appropriate" Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols (which we throw around daily as if they are simple trivialities), if you put some effort into it? Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy, whereas if one puts effort in, it becomes much harder. This is only one of the many ways in which reality is fundamentally paradoxical, and also funny (it is funny to watch people think they are thinking about it....which they are, but not in the way they think they are....which is funny. Funny upon funny...the gateway to all understanding? Now that would be funny!).
- lisper 3y ago
  > Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach? Like what? > you seem smart enough Thank you. > Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols Yep. But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations. > Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy I think you underestimate the effort I've put in. I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > Like what? - explicitly revealing that your hypotheses stated in the form of facts are actually hypotheses - wondering if your hypotheses are true > But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations. There is more than one way to use symbols. For example, one can use them in a deceptive, misinformative manner, or one can use them in the opposite way. > I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it. I offered you a challenge explicitly above, I recommend you take me up on it.

by lisper 3y ago

mistermann 3y ago

> So, assuming you've read that too, the answer to your question is: everything I say (and I do mean everything, including what I am saying right now) is a hypothesis. See, was that so hard? Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach? I mean, you seem smart enough, and you certainly have the self-confidence. > I will say this though: I'm pretty sure you are confusing motte-and-bailey on the one hand, and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts on the other. Would you like to try proving out your hypothesis while I shoot holes in it, like one shoots fish in a barrel? In this case I would start here: "pretty sure" "you" "and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts" "the" "appropriate" Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols (which we throw around daily as if they are simple trivialities), if you put some effort into it? Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy, whereas if one puts effort in, it becomes much harder. This is only one of the many ways in which reality is fundamentally paradoxical, and also funny (it is funny to watch people think they are thinking about it....which they are, but not in the way they think they are....which is funny. Funny upon funny...the gateway to all understanding? Now that would be funny!).

lisper 3y ago
> Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach? Like what? > you seem smart enough Thank you. > Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols Yep. But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations. > Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy I think you underestimate the effort I've put in. I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > Like what? - explicitly revealing that your hypotheses stated in the form of facts are actually hypotheses - wondering if your hypotheses are true > But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations. There is more than one way to use symbols. For example, one can use them in a deceptive, misinformative manner, or one can use them in the opposite way. > I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it. I offered you a challenge explicitly above, I recommend you take me up on it.