Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

We've been talking around the idea you had rejected cannabis was a
gateway drug.  If that wasn't the case why didn't you just say so?





>
> >
> >>
> >> 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.


I actually don't know what you are talking about at this stage. We
began a discussion based on the idea you had defined the concept of
cannabis being a gateway drug as "100% of users will try heroin". If
that wasn't your position you should have said so.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> 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 think what you say above indicates YOU don't understand Popperianism
so ner ne ne ner ner!

You are implicitly assuming Popperianism is infallible. I have said I
have a criticism, one knock-on consequence of which is that Popperians
aren't going to be any better than anyone else at hearing criticism
they don't want to hear. You are arguing that just to have a criticism
like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
Popperianism is infallible :O)
>
>
> > 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?

Because you said you got it after you appeared not to get it and had
it explained to you. The idea that your response was because you
didn't get the underlying relevance doesn't seem to work. Because the
relevance pops out of of the joke. And the joke pops out of the 1 0
binary thing. So....

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

Well that part was about shame and admitting mistakes. I think
Popperians probably find it harder to own up to this sort of thing for
the simple reason they are much more heavily invested than most other
people, into the idea they have risen above it, and are now among the
elite thinkers of the world. E.g. a few posts ago you were claiming
you had moved past all that.