Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > 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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > 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?
>> >
>> > I just don't understand the importance of what you've added here. The
>> > issue is that you set up totally implausible conjecture, totally easy
>> > to refute. And then you proceeded to refute it. And that...I say....is
>> > an example of why the Popperian approach is so easy to 'load'. So to
>> > recap, the issue is that you suggested the conjecture was that in 100%
>> > of cases taking cannabis leads to taking heroin. That's a very silly
>> > idea...and of coruse easy to refute. If you want to talk about that
>> > specifically I'm up for it.
>>
>> If you don't like the way that I setup the conjecture, then you do it.
>> How do you want to set it up? Judging from what you've just said, I
>> think you'll say this:
>
> I think it's sufficient to say that having come up with the idea 100%
> of cannabis users will use heroin, you might then have moved to refute
> the possibility that this was meant. It can't possibly mean that can
> it? What if someone has a heart attack and dies while smoking the pot.
> He won't be using heroin.
>
> Understanding these things requires thoughtfulness or it's not
> meaningful.

So now you're saying that you've put in more (or better) thought than
I have. Lets see.


> One example just from personal experience of why there
> would be a link between cannabis and heroin is that - certainly in
> poorer districts - there will be a link between cannabis dealers and
> heroin dealers..

Ah so you agree that the gateway theory, at least in the situations
you're describing, hinges on the fact that cannabis and heroin use is
illegal. Hence, part of the causality is a law rather than anything to
do with a chemical or how that chemical affects humans.


> Maybe not direct...but buying dope will bring you
> into contact with a whole load of criminality.

Because of the laws against drugs and the drug war.


> This isn't necessary
> true in more business/middle-class districts...but in poorer districts
> dealers are often pushers...under pressure to get new customers for
> new types of drug. It happens. There will be lots of other,
> complicated, social class relaterd, explanations.

And in all of that you fail to mention the law.


>
>>
>> The gateway theory says that for some people (or is it some
>> situations?), cannabis use causes someone to use heroin too. Do you
>> agree with that? If not, word it the way you want so I can examine it.
>
> You'll have to examine it on your own steam. But look....what's the
> point if you don't try to put an argument (that you dont' agree with)
> into its best possible form?

You're claiming that I don't try to do that? So, you're claiming that
I evade. If you believe that I evaded, why don't you call me out on
that? That you don't call me out on it, is a sign that you don't
understand Popperism.


> Suggesting the gateway theory is that
> 100% of people who try cannabis will try heroin is obviously not
> plausible at all.

That is not a theory. That is a statement of an expected observation.
You're saying that the gateway theory *is* of the form: X% of people
who do X will do Y. That is not a theory. It doesn't explain why
anything is happening. It only *asserts* that something is happening
without explaining causality.

And the only causality you've explained so far is stuff about drug
dealers and you didn't even mention why we have drug dealers.


>>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Right, well there's your problem Rami. You think anyone who
>> > understands Popperians MUST decide to become a Popperian.
>>
>> Its not a problem. I don't have any criticisms of Popperian
>> epistemology. That means I consider it true. That means that I believe
>> that if someone learned it, he would *act* it
>>
>> Do you have any criticisms of Popperian epistemology? If so, tell me
>> them so that I can figure out whether Popperism has flaws or not. If I
>> find flaws in it, then I would say that if someone learns Popperian
>> epistemology and if he noticed a flaw, then he wouldn't *act* it,
>> because he knows about the flaw.
>>
>> So, since you don't consider yourself Popperian, but you say you know
>> Popperism, that means you see a flaw in it. What is that flaw? Explain
>> it.
>>
>> BTW, if you noticed a flaw, and didn't explain it to us, then this is
>> a good indication that you don't understand Popperism. Or, if you
>> noticed a flaw, and did explain it to us, and someone gave you
>> criticisms of your criticism, and you stopped replying, then this is a
>> good indication that you don't understand Popperism.
>
> Not necessarily. What if part of my critical insight about
> popperianism is that Popperians are absolutely awful at hearing
> criticism they don't want to hear?

Then you don't understand Popperism. It means that you've interacted
with Popperians, and you failed to persuade them, and you're blaming
your failure on this theory that "Popperians are absolutely awful at
hearing criticism they don't want to hear".

The ironic thing about what you just said is that in the scenario you
described, a Popperian would criticize the way someone is replying. If
you think someone evaded, you can criticize *that* he evaded, and
explain how he evaded. You could explain why you think that a certain
part of the discussion needs addressing and explain why you think it
needs it (instead of assuming that someone is evading).


> I mean, if that's a consequence of
> my criticism then I would be sensible to think twice before bothering,
> right? By the way, I actually mentioned all this in the original post.
>
>>
>> >> > > > 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?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 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?
>> >
>> > The funny was totally inherent in the situation Rami.
>>
>> I just read the thread again with the binary joke thing. I never
>> claimed to have gotten the joke. And I did say that I didn't "get the
>> point". And you're now saying that I was evading saying "I didn't get
>> the joke". Thats ridiculous.
>
> Here is one stretch:
>
>>>>>>>> No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary, and those not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Uh. Is that a riddle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10" in binary).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but with a point: there are many ways to categorize explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
>
> You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
> picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on the
> 10 thing.

And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?

And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory that
Popperians don't like to hear criticism?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com