Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:01 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Alan <alan_forrester2-/[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
> >>
> >
> > Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
> > personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
> > theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
> > reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
> > no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
> >
> > However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
> > neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
> > think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
> > wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
> > think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
> > structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
> > goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
> > farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
> > tend to diverge as you let them run.
> >
> > So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
> > that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
> > IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
> > abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
> > become foundationalism.
> >
> > The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
> > good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
> > developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
> > there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
> > does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
> > right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
> > us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
> > help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
> > like and resolve.
> >
> > Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
> > don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
> > it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
> > I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
> > of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
> > people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
> > explain it?
> >
> > What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
> > could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
> > all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
> > really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
> > that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
> > respect.
>
> You have little understand of Popperism.

Perhaps, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from what I say above,
because I have pretty clearly indicated that on this occasion I am
saying what I think is true, not what popperians think is true.

>
> A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
> criticisms of that theory.
>
> So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
> theories, then I'm either going to:
>
> (1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
> to be true,
>
> or
>
> (2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
> theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
> to be false.
>
> You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
> minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
> mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
> don't respond to criticism in the way I described?

I don't think anyone is lying, but what you define above is just so
soaked in potential loopholes and leverages and ways to load the
table, in the end what does it really mean? Look at the way you dealt
with the link between cannabis and heroin. It looks like you decided
it wasn't going to true, or perhaps it was "pre-refuted" in some other
way (in fact popperians would think this for a variet of reasons). So
then what you do is define the link a really implausible easy to
refute way....and refute it.

That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
popperian. There are other ways. So many other ways as well. In the
end it has to come down to the same trust in the character and nature
of a person that already exists outside the popperian environment.

>
>
> > Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
> > can.
>
> That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
> What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?
>
>
> > We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
> > and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
> > can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.
>
> What do you think DD does any of that?
>
> For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
> that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
> we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
> determining which ideas are true and which are false?


No...I'm not complaining about the Popperian worldview. I'm interested
in it. I just don't think that's how people operate. I don't think
that's how you operate all the time. You might a lot of the time in
the right sort of scenario, with the right sort of other people,
talking about the right sort of ideas, with the right sort of
disagreements between you. But the question is what people are like
when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
the neck. You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?

That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary. Did you
get that joke at the time it was told?