Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> > 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?

I don't know what you're asking. You asked me questions and I answered
them directly. Are you again saying that I evaded?

I reject the idea that any choice is a gateway to another choice.


>>
>> > 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.

I didn't say anything about numbers. You brought that up. All I said
was that the gateway theory says that A causes B. And I'm saying that
A and B are choices. And choices don't cause choices. People make
choices using their ideas.


>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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.

Do you know why people don't want to hear criticism of certain ideas?
It means they have anti-rational memes related to those ideas. Can a
Popperian have anti-rational memes? Of course. I've already said this.
What is infallibilist about it?


> You are arguing that just to have a criticism
> like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
> Popperianism is infallible :O)

No. I'm saying that you don't criticize people when you think they
evade, and that that fact means you don't understand Popperism. A
Popperian wants to be criticized when he evades. And a Popperian is
willing to criticize someone when he evades.


>> >>>>>>>> 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.

No. I said I didn't find it funny. And that I know what binary means.
What is the problem you see in this?


> 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....

So you're saying that since *you* found the joke funny, that I should
have found the joke funny. Unless I didn't know what binary means. So
you're saying that *all* people that know what binary means will find
that joke funny?


>
>>
>> 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.

That doesn't make sense. The stuff I wrote about rationalizing is new.
No one before me wrote about it. I think Elliot wrote some stuff on
psychology, but not in one cohesive article like I did.

So that means that Popperians before me don't know about subconscious
vs conscious thinking and about why people rationalize and how that is
linked with bad feelings like shame. So why would a Popperian who
doesn't know about his stuff think that he has risen above something
that he's not aware of? Or are you specifically talking about me?

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