Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Nov 3, 2012 1:17 AM, "a b" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?
> > >
> > > 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?

Why don't you have anything to say here? You're just going to evade?
This is how I know you know little about Popperism. Someone who
understands Popperism, would call himself a Popperian, and would
answer questions like this one that you evaded.

Or, I'm wrong that you are evading, and maybe you agree with me and
you just didn't think its important to say so (which I do plenty of
times).


> > > 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.

Exactly. That means I didn't get the joke, i.e. I didn't see the funny.

Most ideas [note that a joke is an idea] have component ideas within
it. Say an idea has two component ideas within it. Say a person
understands one component but not the other. Say this composite idea
is a joke. To find it funny, the bare minimum is for a person to
understand all of the jokes' component ideas.

Does this makes sense? Or do you think I'm evading?

BTW, lets say you're right that I felt shame about having not
understood the joke. What's your point? What problem are you trying to
solve? Are you saying that Popperians can feel shame? Of course they
can. It means they haven't yet solved a specific problem. Maybe its a
problem they haven't examined yet. And maybe they have an
anti-rational meme shielding that problem from creativity and
criticism.


>
> 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.

Thats the wrong way to think about this sort of thing. Two people can
act the same way, say the same thing, and have wildly different
reasons for those actions and words.

For example, when a Popperian says "I am an atheist", he means that he
has considered the God theory and its rival theories and he has
criticisms of all of them but the Physics theory. But when a skeptic
(who doesn't know Popperism) says "I am an atheist", he means that he
believes he has proof that there is no God, or that he has proof that
all the religions are man made.

-- Rami