Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm saying you don't understand Popperian epistemology. I drew the
> conclusion from what you say above and from the posts that I've read
> over the past few months.
>
>
> > >
> > > 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,
>
> And I didn't say that you did.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Ah so you noticed a flaw in my ideas. Why didn't you point it out to
> me? If I don't notice the flaw, and you didn't tell me the flaw that
> you noticed, then how am I supposed to know that I have a flaw?
>
>
> > It looks like you decided
> > it wasn't going to true,
>
> What is *it*? It was a correlation. I agree that the correlation
> exists, i.e. that the correlation is true. So what?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Easy refutations are as good as hard refutations. By good I mean they
> do their job of refutation, i.e. falsifying a theory.
>
> For example, if a theory uses the idea that correlation means
> causation, then we can use a criticism that was created long ago,
> which is the idea that correlation does not cause causation. This
> (unrefuted) criticism refutes the theory.
>
>
> > That's one way to load the table and walk away feeling like a good
> > popperian.
>
> And how does someone know if he messed up? By him or someone else
> noticing a flaw in one of his ideas, and pointing out that flaw, and
> explaining why its a flaw.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Trust is worthless. Character and nature of a person are ideas that
> that person has. And for a Popperian, none of his ideas are outside of
> "the Popperian environment". That means that *all* his ideas are on
> the table.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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 didn't say you were. I'm saying you don't understand what the
> Popperian view *is*.
>
>
> > I'm interested
> > in it. I just don't think that's how people operate.
>
> Because you don't know what Popperism is. So you see my posts and you
> fail to realize that every one of my sentences is part of the C&R
> method.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> You're talking about me specifically? You're saying that I have some
> ideas that I wouldn't question? That I would not put on the table?
> That I think are true and shouldn't be questioned? Its possible. I'm
> not aware of them. If they exist, they are subconscious ideas. Since
> you're talking about them, what are they?
>
>
> > But the question is what people are like
> > when the clouds come out and the rain starts pouring down the back of
> > the neck.
>
> What does that mean? Metaphors are not good for clarity.
>
>
> > You talk about shame for mistakes being bad, but WHEN you
> > actually feel the shame, are you going to behave any different?
>
> I don't feel shame. I used to though.
>
>
> > That joke elliot cracked along the lines of there being 10 types of
> > people, those who think whatevrer, and those who think binary.
>
> I recall that the joke wasn't about people.
>
>
> > Did you
> > get that joke at the time it was told?
>
> I didn't get the joke, at least not the part that was supposed to make
> it funny. Whats your point? What problem does this your joke thing
> solve?
>

I agree that you didn't get the joke. And no shame in that. I already
knew the joke so it wasn't an issue. I can't remember if I got it the
first time I ever heard it.

But you didn't say that you didn't get it. You actualy  said a lot of
other things that kind of built in the idea that you did get it but
didn't get the relevance and so on.

Ordinarily, if I see something like that, my judgement is that the
person felt embarassed/shame ... a bit like when you trip over your
shoe laces getting off the subway. I wouldn't normally mention it...of
course not. But the relevance here is that you acted exactly the same
way a non-popperian would.