curi blog comments http://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us FF The Four Best Books
I am second-handed :(]]>
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:23:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9060 http://curi.us/comments/show/9060
FF Discussion Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:19:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9059 http://curi.us/comments/show/9059 curi Open Discussion Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:51:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9058 http://curi.us/comments/show/9058 FF stupid liberals Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:38:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9057 http://curi.us/comments/show/9057 FF Open Discussion Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:34:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9056 http://curi.us/comments/show/9056 Anonymous stupid liberals Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:33:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9055 http://curi.us/comments/show/9055 FF stupid liberals Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:29:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9054 http://curi.us/comments/show/9054 FF stupid liberals Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:28:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9053 http://curi.us/comments/show/9053 FF Open Discussion
Roark doesn't get angry. People consider getting pissed off while others don't value his/her work as taking things seriously. Roark seems calm all the time. He just does his thing without caring what opinions others have of him or his work.]]>
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:26:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9052 http://curi.us/comments/show/9052
FF Open Discussion
Is self-deprecation bad? Leftists promote that a lot.]]>
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:22:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9051 http://curi.us/comments/show/9051
Anonymous The Four Best Books
if you doubt it, your comments should include naming some other book and giving some criticism of one of these four.

some people disagree isn't a criticism, it's a popularity contest.]]>
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:21:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9050 http://curi.us/comments/show/9050
FF The Four Best Books
The four best books for people who value the same things as Elliot?

People value different things. There are also some people don't know what to value yet.]]>
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:19:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9049 http://curi.us/comments/show/9049
Very Mysterious J Open Discussion
Note I am not saying the below explains why Peterson would have the misunderstanding he does. I'm thinking more of regular people.

The basic idea is that all Rand's characters share some really distinct traits. And each trait is one which people regard as unusual/unrealistic by itself. And if you combine the traits into one character, it becomes enough to start to seem like a "type."

One trait is that Rand's heroes all take themselves really seriously. They think their life matters and don't self-deprecate at all.

Another trait of Rand's heroes is that they are all very confident in themselves and their abilities in at least some area of life.

Another trait of Rand's heroes is that they think ideas are important and talk about them at length.

There are substantive differences between the characters, but to perceive them requires an engagement with ideas. If "thinks ideas are important" stands out enough as a defining character trait to you -- and is maybe something that you only experience when watching a documentary describing a great thinker -- then you're not gonna be able to make the relevant distinctions.]]>
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:17:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9048 http://curi.us/comments/show/9048
FF Open Discussion
Yes, I have never seen anyone like Roark in Fiction.

> Or look at the people who Roark doesn't do business with after he builds Heller's house. There's the one who hadn't even seen a photo of Roark's work, she just likes Tudor and wanted the same architect that Heller had. There's the one who wants the Georgia house from his youth, with electric lights designed to look like candles. There's the one who Roark persuades, but then he can't persuade the board of his company. And there's the major bank job that Roark turns down b/c they wanted to modify his plans. They're all different. Yet Peterson makes it sound like Rand only has 2 types of characters between all her books...

His comments are similar to the ones on the internet. I have read many reviews with the same "Bad Philosopher" "Uni-dimensional characters" remark. He didn't try to criticize the consensus.

He likes Stefan Moleneux and has appeared many times on his show. Stefan should have explained Rand to him (I know Elliot Understands Rand better).]]>
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:14:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9047 http://curi.us/comments/show/9047
FF Open Discussion
A Pro working class socialist woman gave him those Rand Novels mixed with George Orwell and other books. Maybe if an Objectivist like you introduced those books to him he wouldn't have dismissed them like he did.]]>
Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:59:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9046 http://curi.us/comments/show/9046
Stupid Conservatives Lesley stupid liberals Wed, 20 Sep 2017 07:07:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9045 http://curi.us/comments/show/9045 curi Grammar Learning Process Video Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:36:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9044 http://curi.us/comments/show/9044 Anonymous Open Discussion
Keating, Wynand and Dominique Francon are all **mixed** characters.

Roark and Toohey are the purest characters. They're both super interesting because *no characters like them exist in other books*. They're not generic heroes and villains, they're *unique* characters you've never seen before anywhere else.

Or look at the people who Roark doesn't do business with after he builds Heller's house. There's the one who hadn't even seen a photo of Roark's work, she just likes Tudor and wanted the same architect that Heller had. There's the one who wants the Georgia house from his youth, with electric lights designed to look like candles. There's the one who Roark persuades, but then he can't persuade the board of his company. And there's the major bank job that Roark turns down b/c they wanted to modify his plans. They're all different. Yet Peterson makes it sound like Rand only has 2 types of characters between all her books...

As to Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart spends most of the novel being in the wrong. And Hank Rearden has bad ideas about sanction, family and sex. And the bad guys are totally realistic – they aren't just like "I wanna be evil", they're just flawed people who do bad things as a result of having pretty normal flaws. And Robert Stadler is an interesting, mixed character too.]]>
Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:48:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9043 http://curi.us/comments/show/9043
Anonymous Letter to Jordan Peterson on Antidepressants and Rational Discussion
yes but he apparently didn't understand it very well]]>
Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:33:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9042 http://curi.us/comments/show/9042
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:32:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9041 http://curi.us/comments/show/9041 ff Letter to Jordan Peterson on Antidepressants and Rational Discussion Tue, 19 Sep 2017 05:17:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9040 http://curi.us/comments/show/9040 ff Open Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofVqp-RMDpE]]> Tue, 19 Sep 2017 04:59:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9039 http://curi.us/comments/show/9039 Elliot Temple on Facebook Open Discussion
capitalism is what you get when you apply freedom to economics. if you have a criticism of freedom, or an explanation of how capitalism diverges from freedom, that would be an example of a way to argue with Rand and argue with others like Mises or myself.

freedom is connected to reason, because you need to be free to use your own mind to judge ideas and then act according to your own judgement. if you take freedom away from people, you're not letting them do their best to use rational thinking to run their lives. authorities controlling people's actions is an infallibilist approach, so it's incompatible with Popper's epistemology. Popper says (similarly to Rand) that we all may be mistaken so we shouldn't impose our ideas on others (it's OK to persuade them on a voluntary basis, but not to use violence which is the opposite of reason).]]>
Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:47:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9038 http://curi.us/comments/show/9038
Paths Forward and Debating Ayn Rand curi Paths Forward Short Summary
https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/permalink/10155688351614904/?comment_id=10155695376569904&reply_comment_id=10155699326394904&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

I think it's important to write criticism of stuff you disagree with, rather than judge it's bad in your own head but don't ever expose your reasoning to criticism. Being fallible, it's possible you misunderstood the thing you didn't like, or didn't think of an argument that changes which ideas are correct. i've written a lot on this topic such as http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward

If someone else had already written something good enough, then you could endorse it, and take responsibility for it, instead of writing your own. Then it would speak for you, but also any mistakes in it would be your own.

Alternatively, if no one writes criticism of Rand, then how should Rand fans like myself ever change our minds? What's to persuade or correct us? If the state of the public debate is that Rand is unanswered, then I don't think you can blame people for agreeing with her.

People look at the situation and think, "There are 500 criticisms of Objectivism. But if I pick one and endorse it, I may get a reply pointing out that that particular one I chose was poorly argued, made factual errors, contained internal contradictions, made ad hominem attacks, etc. So I don't want to pick one, I just want to non-specifically point at the whole body of literature and claim some of the arguments are good without giving any examples." That method – there's a good criticism *somewhere*, but I won't specifically commit myself to anything – prevents critical rebuttals.]]>
Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:36:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9037 http://curi.us/comments/show/9037
Anonymous Apple Announcements Commentary Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:37:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9036 http://curi.us/comments/show/9036 Anonymous Apple Announcements Commentary Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:41:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9035 http://curi.us/comments/show/9035 My Opinion of Merchants of Despair Elliot Temple Bad Scholarship: Merchants of Despair by Robert Zubrin Sat, 16 Sep 2017 12:30:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9034 http://curi.us/comments/show/9034 Anonymous Apple Announcements Commentary Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:03:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9031 http://curi.us/comments/show/9031 Anonymous Apple Announcements Commentary Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:24:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9030 http://curi.us/comments/show/9030 FF Open Discussion
Beginning Of Infinity - David Deutsch
The Fabric of Reality
How To Make Girls Chase - Chase Amante
Henry Hazlitt Economics in One Lesson
History of Greece - William Godwin from Elliot
I Will Teach You To Be Rich
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels - Alex Epstein
The Myth of Mental Illness 2nd ed. Thomas Szasz - 1974 -
The Open Society and Its Enemies - Karl Popper
The Poverty of Historicism - Karl Popper
Aubrey de Grey - Ending Aging
Human Action - Treatise on economics
Anthem - Ayn Rand
Art of Fiction_ A Guide for Writers and Readers, The - Ayn Rand
Art of Nonfiction_ A Guide for Writers and Readers, The - Ayn Rand & Robert Mayhew
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand & Leonard Peikoff
Ayn Rand Lexicon_ Objectivism From a to Z, The - Ayn Rand & Harry Binswanger
Ayn Rand Reader - Ayn Rand & Gary Hull & Leonard Peikoff
Capitalism_ The Unknown Ideal - Ayn Rand & Nathaniel Branden & Alan Greenspan & Robert Hessen
Early Ayn Rand_ A Selection From Her Unpublished Fiction, The - Ayn Rand & Leonard Peikoff
For the New Intellectual_ The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - Ayn Rand
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - Ayn Rand & Harry Binswanger
Journals of Ayn Rand - Ayn Rand & David Harriman & Leonard Peikoff
Philosophy Who Needs It - Ayn Rand & Leonard Peikoff
Return of the Primitive_ The Anti-Industrial Revolution - Ayn Rand & Peter Schwartz
Romantic Manifesto, The - Ayn Rand
The Fountainhead
The Virtue of Selfishness - A New Concept of Egoism, Ayn Rand & Nathaniel Branden
The Voice of Reason - Essays in Objectivist Thought
We the Living - Ayn Rand & Leonard (int) Peikoff]]>
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:59:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9029 http://curi.us/comments/show/9029
Anonymous The World's Biggest Problems
social status games are thousands of years old. some surface details keep changing on a short timeframe, but some of the core ideas haven't been changing. for a broader perspective on that, see the discussion of rational and anti-rational memes in this book: http://beginningofinfinity.com]]>
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:40:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9028 http://curi.us/comments/show/9028
Anonymous The World's Biggest Problems
I suspect that you have run into the same kind of response.

With respect to popularity being gained by social status games all I can say is that's been my experience and observation for over 70 years so I doubt it's only begun happening recently.]]>
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:29:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9027 http://curi.us/comments/show/9027
Anonymous I Made New Videos
the article isn't about that.

---

the in-joke explanation is no good b/c Elliot is actually in the in-crowd. he's already familiar with the idea of "possible and impossible transformations". he isn't missing some piece of information due to being an outsider.]]>
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 19:40:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9026 http://curi.us/comments/show/9026
Anonymous I Made New Videos
> but what you refer to here isn't some tiny sub-sub-culture, it's the group of ppl who have information that Elliot himself did have.

This is a good example of hard to understand writing. The 'what you refer to here" has me scratching me head. What is the "what"? And where is the "here"? The "you" is giving the impression that I wrote the sentence preceding the one above, but I did not. What information did Elliot have? Is the sentence implying that group is not some "tiny sub-sub-culture"? Is the point some anti-fallibilist point that people who have information that Elliot himself did have would get the joke? But he didn't so it doesn't make sense?]]>
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 18:50:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9025 http://curi.us/comments/show/9025
Anonymous I Made New Videos
but what you refer to here isn't some tiny sub-sub-culture, it's the group of ppl who have information that Elliot himself did have.

i think the "joke" just doesn't actually make sense.]]>
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 16:09:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9024 http://curi.us/comments/show/9024
The Possibility of Constructor Theory Anonymous I Made New Videos
You missed something about the title "The Possibility of Constructor Theory".

The title is an in-joke. The author is trying to be clever.

According to the article:

> Constructor theory seeks to express all fundamental scientific theories in terms of a dichotomy between possible and impossible physical transformations ... "

The title is a reference to these possible and impossible transformations. The author is saying that the scientific theory Constructor Theory itself is something that is possible.

Trying-to-be-clever titles are common in articles like this.]]>
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 16:05:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9023 http://curi.us/comments/show/9023
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
>[1] It's important to understand that some states have a legal duty to retreat and some don't. Arizona does not have a duty to retreat. If I lived in a state with a duty to retreat, I'd have to additionally show that retreat wasn't feasible because of stuff like the possibility of him throwing the tire iron, or my inability to get unbuckled or move fast enough to get out of the way. That'd put the eventual outcome of the case more in doubt. Which is why "duty to retreat" laws are bad IMO even though retreating is generally the best idea when it's feasible

In any reasonably complex IRL situation, some factual ambiguities will come up if you subject the situation to intense scrutiny after the fact. Stuff like whether some opportunity to retreat was missed or how safe retreating would have been.

Even someone with elite special forces training in using force will not be able to analyze all the angles of a real life scenario (where decisions have to be made in a low-single-digit number of seconds) with the same level of thoroughness as some lawyers spending weeks on a case.

For stuff that's ambiguous and happened under extreme time pressure, I think it's important to have legal policies which take account of who created the conflict in the first place. Did someone being attacked with a tire iron miss an opportunity to retreat? Maybe. But tire iron guy sure as hell missed an opportunity to not be a violent thug. The law should take that into account in a systemic way rather than holding people defending themselves from serious violence to an unreasonable standard.]]>
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:12:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9022 http://curi.us/comments/show/9022
PAS Bitcoin Sucks
But more importantly for the statement I was making: I think the culture has some answers. I think the culture's answers are not all explicit and contain some contradictions, but they're there. The term "fully justified" refers to cultural norms, not just the formal legal system.

I also think some of the moral issues you bring up that might be controversial in the culture as a whole are significantly less controversial among people who have made the choice to own and carry a gun. "Gun culture" is a real thing that includes some of this stuff.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 20:46:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9021 http://curi.us/comments/show/9021
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
there are lots of important moral issues which deserve more attention than the – admittedly important – practical matters you brought up.

these moral issues inform the behavior of most of your fellow citizens far more than concerns that their justified self-defense shooting would come with legal risk and hassle.

*you could get rid of all punishments for gun murders and most ppl still wouldn't want to shoot anyone*. court is not the key issue, let alone a court case ppl expect to win (especially for people who don't know much about how unreasonable, unfair, incompetent, arbitrary and random juries and government processes can be).]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:18:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9020 http://curi.us/comments/show/9020
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
e.g. wanting to do the right thing (such as not take a life when you shouldn't – caring about peace and consent and such), rather than avoid a hassle and risk.

the issue of whether to shoot includes whether you'd be a thug if you did. it involves issues of how to treat people (shooting someone is a type of treatment of a person).

you may have kinda ignored or misunderstood these issues b/c you already have answers to them? your answer being that defense is an acceptable way to treat someone, which is highly controversial, and highly dependent on having the right conception of defense.

so you may have some answers about what defense is, whether it's morally ok to shoot someone for defense to merely lower a *risk* you get harmed rather than a guarantee, how much of a risk it has to be before you can shoot or whether there's some other way to decide, etc. those issues are way more crucial to what to do than how hard it'd be to explain the shooting in court.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:14:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9019 http://curi.us/comments/show/9019
PAS Bitcoin Sucks
You say I should have mentioned other stuff more. But you also objected when I criticized the other stuff you gave:

> and you're just in your own world assuming i must be making some kinda statement directly about the gun scenario.

What are the other things you think I should have mentioned more, but didn't, in my original statement?]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:07:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9018 http://curi.us/comments/show/9018
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:45:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9017 http://curi.us/comments/show/9017 PAS Bitcoin Sucks Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:44:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9016 http://curi.us/comments/show/9016 Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
it wasn't directly in relation to the scenario, it was directly in relation to the quote:

> This is because people generally know that even if it's eventually found to be fully justified, shooting someone brings on a world of cost, risk, and scrutiny you'd best avoid if it's avoidable.

that use of "because" is overly inclusive (should be "partly because" – or better yet, don't focus on those things this exclusively and mention other stuff more).

i thought this worth commenting on b/c it looks a lot like a common libertarian-skewed misconception about morality.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:30:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9015 http://curi.us/comments/show/9015
PAS Bitcoin Sucks > People also care about morality!

My first thought was, well yes they do. You made a standalone statement for which I have no crits; let it go at that.

But then I thought, I'm not clear on why you'd make that particular statement in relation to the case we were discussing. So I tried to get some clarity / reword what I was talking about.

It seems to me now that I should have gone with my first thought. It seems like all we're doing here is getting stuck in a rabbit hole of word meanings. Which I could pursue for another round but I don't think it would be useful or fun.

I agree people care about morality. We seem to agree there's lots of reasons not to shoot someone even if you expect a court to say it was defense. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about substance.

Agree?]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:12:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9014 http://curi.us/comments/show/9014
Anonymous Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
please slow down. i've read Atlas Shrugged 10 times. can you provide a *nationalist* quote from Atlas Shrugged? i never saw one.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:53:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9013 http://curi.us/comments/show/9013
Anonymous Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
do you have a criticism of C&R as a general method of learning? or an alternative?]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:52:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9012 http://curi.us/comments/show/9012
Anonymous Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
then why did you write:

> I'm not a fan of win/win scenarios

and then when asked to clarify, you wrote:

> I prefer win/lose

???]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:51:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9011 http://curi.us/comments/show/9011
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
no i meant what i wrote. "does not consist of" means *there are other parts besides that*. if i meant "does not include" i would have written it.

continuing by saying there's also other stuff means: here are some of the other parts which demonstrate it doesn't consist of only the parts you talked about.

it's not ambiguous.

> My position: Morality doesn't *solely* or *mainly* consist of trying to avoid costs, risks, and punishments.

your account *solely* focused on that stuff. hence my comment.

> > there'a also other stuff like not wanting to be a murderer,

> If you're shooting someone in self defense (which is what "fully justified" means in this context) then you're already not a murderer.

you're having a lot of trouble reading. i said "morality does not consist of..." and then i said that not wanting to be a murderer is an example of a thing in morality that isn't in the risk/cost/punishment avoidance category.

and you're just in your own world assuming i must be making some kinda statement directly about the gun scenario.

> > not wanting to hurt ppl,

> Under normal circumstances, that's right.

> But I think it's the wrong mindset to have with regard to situations which, by definition, have already escalated to deadly violence or imminent threat of deadly violence.

same thing again. you're treating general statements as if they are directly and only about some particular example, even though that wasn't stated.

and when you find that *doesn't work very well*, rather than reconsider how to read them, you just figure i'm wrong.

you seem confused by the very concept that i would reply, not about gun control, but about the nature of morality. despite the fact that when i do want to talk about the tire iron scenario, i specifically mention it – indicating i wasn't already talking about it the whole time.

> Someone's dog pooping on my lawn is not an imminent threat to my life or anyone else's. It's a totally different context from what I've been discussing.

despite this, you still just aren't getting the point at all that i made statements about moral philosophy and why your view on moral philosophy (rather than a particular case) was wrong. you're trying to fit my round statements into a square whole, persistently, for the entirety of 2 long replies with many quotes.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:50:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9010 http://curi.us/comments/show/9010
Win/Win Conrad Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
Ayn Rand, the novelist, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and exponent of "rational selfishness" or unfettered "individualism" (capitalism), uses fiction to peddle a right-wing nationalist view of state and citizenry (think Bannon/Breitbart & the alt-right). Reason, in the service of unbridled exploitation of natural resources and labour, panders to a distinctively Nietzschean 'ubermensch' personality-type (as Dagny Taggart, Hank Reardon are)ruthless in its scorn of charity and alutruism and in its pursuit of power and control obtained primarily through property acquisition.

Her novels--badly written in my view--give the lie to any redeeming view of human reason as a tool of human integrity and virtue. I think William F. Buckley best characterized "Atlas Shrugged" as "ideological fabulism". See https://youtu.be/5KmPLkiqnO8 Rand's was a type of demagoguery that the intelligentsia of her day seemed attracted to! I think Trump best typifies the spirit of both author and viewpoint in politics in America today.

>Popper's method of *conjectures and refutations* (evolutionary epistemology) applies to all fields, not just science

Again, and notwithstanding the great man's claims to the contrary, the case for "deductivist method" is better made in science where Popper can flex his great logico-scientific muscles to make the celebrated "falsifiability" claim. His knowledge of political and ethical theory, on the other hand, wasn't as strongly grounded in key principals and methodologies (in the way that Herbert Marcuse was, e.g.) There is a world of difference between "Logic of Scientific Discovery" and "Open Society"

>you specifically said you prefer win/lose over win/win. that is, you want some people to lose. you aren't communicating very clearly though


No, I don't want some people to lose. You're quibbling. I prefer a pragmatist model of truth whereby 'truth' and 'falsity' (as applied to any human sphere) are determined by the consequences to which they give rise: for reasons which James very convincingly outlines in his "Meaning and Truth".]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:53:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9009 http://curi.us/comments/show/9009
Scenarios PAS Bitcoin Sucks
"paperwork" is not my concern. What I mentioned was stuff like thousands of dollars of cost, prosecutors and media digging into my life looking for things to use against me, the process disrupting my life for a long time before reaching resolution, and uncertainties in both the outcome of the shot and the eventual outcome of the court case. Those concerns are not "paperwork".

Some of those concerns might not exist or be less in a better society - like biases against my race or weapon choice or political preferences. But I'd expect most of the concerns to still exist in any better society I have contemplated.

It's important to figure out whether someone who has been shot was actually an aggressor or a victim. Figuring that out is costly and detailed knowledge work. Currently many of those costs are paid by the taxpayers in general. In a better society I'd actually expect to bear *more* of that cost personally than I do in our own, not less. Of course I'd also expect to be much wealthier so maybe proportionally the costs would be easier to bear, but that's a bit off topic.

My past history might reasonably have a bearing on figuring out the facts of the case so I'd expect an investigation to delve into my past even in a better society.

There's always going to be some risk of the investigative and decision process getting the wrong answer. A better society would be better about getting the right answer than ours, but not infallible.

Also, the risk of missing the aggressor and hitting bystanders doesn't have much to do with society - I don't think a better society would change that concern.

So with all that in mind I don't think my decision to shoot or not would be appreciably different in a better society. What would be different, I think, is that I'd be much less likely to have reason to consider shooting someone in the first place.

> but there exist other types of scenarios like shooting someone b/c they let their dog poop on your lawn and didn't clean it up. how should one think about that scenario? most of the answer is NOT about court, paperwork, etc. the main issue here isn't whether or not you'd win in court. if there was a new law on the matter so you would win in court and it'd be super fast and cheap (and they'd even pay you a reward), you still definitely shouldn't shoot him, b/c the moral issues about how people should treat each other still apply.

Someone's dog pooping on my lawn is not an imminent threat to my life or anyone else's. It's a totally different context from what I've been discussing.

Ya it'd be immoral to shoot someone for letting their dog poop on my lawn. And if a society said it was OK to shoot someone doing that and easy to win in court, it'd be a worse society than our current one, not better.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 14:34:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9008 http://curi.us/comments/show/9008
Moral Considerations PAS Bitcoin Sucks
Did you intend the idea that there's no moral consideration at all in avoiding unnecessary costs, risks, and punishments? It's kinda ambiguous cuz this statement seems like a pretty straight-up denial, but then you say "also" in the next sentence.

My position: Morality doesn't *solely* or *mainly* consist of trying to avoid costs, risks, and punishments. But I do think avoiding unnecessary costs, risks, and punishments are a significant part of morality because doing that is part of having a good life.

> there'a also other stuff like not wanting to be a murderer,

If you're shooting someone in self defense (which is what "fully justified" means in this context) then you're already not a murderer.

> not wanting to hurt ppl,

Under normal circumstances, that's right.

But I think it's the wrong mindset to have with regard to situations which, by definition, have already escalated to deadly violence or imminent threat of deadly violence.

Once someone has crossed that line, the correct moral concern should be about stopping the threat without getting seriously hurt or killed yourself in the process. Whether or not the aggressor gets hurt is not your concern any more. There are good reasons not to shoot even sometimes in a deadly threat situation. But "I don't want to hurt the aggressor" is a *bad reason*. It's one that can get innocent people killed.

> caring what is defense (objectively, rather than in court),

I think there's very substantial overlap between what's objectively defense and what's considered defense in court. At least in a good state like Arizona. And I think where the two don't intersect the concern is that objective defense will be ruled not defense in court, rather than the other way around.

Thinking legalistically means, for most people, less propensity to shoot than if they're only thinking about what's objectively defense.

Taken to extreme, thinking about legalities can make good guys too timid and thereby get innocent people killed. It's dangerous to be so worried about what a court might say later on that you forget about the need to do what is objectively necessary right now to protect your life.

> trying not to shoot someone for emotional reasons,

Shooting someone for emotional reasons is not defense, either objectively or under the law. So I think this was already covered. Do you think there's some aspect that isn't addressed?

> preferring voluntary interactions, not wanting to be a thug, and conceptions of *how people should treat each other*.

I think this is basically the same issue as "not wanting to hurt ppl". Of course, in normal circumstances all that you say applies.

But when by their actions someone so thoroughly destroys the normal civilized model of interaction as to threaten your very existence, the concern should be about finding a way back to normalcy without getting hurt or killed yourself in the process. You shouldn't try to maintain a fiction about your preferred model of interaction continuing to operate in such circumstances.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 14:34:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9007 http://curi.us/comments/show/9007
Anonymous Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
you aren't communicating your thoughts about Rand. i don't already have the same opinion as you, and you aren't arguing whatever your conclusion is. i don't agree.

> Popper is a more serious player in the discussion of "objective truth" in science. The 'deductivist method' is intriguing and one with which I am much in agreement. But that's science; not ethics

Popper's method of *conjectures and refutations* (evolutionary epistemology) applies to all fields, not just science.

> But you should go there; it's where your win/win discussion inevitably heads

you'd have to explain.

> There's a world of difference between the fact that people oftentimes fail to make expedient decisions, resulting in terrible sequences; and rather hoping that they do, to fulfil some quasi-religious scruple

you specifically said you prefer win/lose over win/win. that is, you want some people to lose. you aren't communicating very clearly though.


PS please use ">" for quotes so they're colored, like I do.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:57:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9006 http://curi.us/comments/show/9006
Win/Win Conrad Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
I don't know Deutsch but we can't mention Randinthe samediscussion of "objective truth" in science. Rand is so...well, so like her unabashedly Nietzschean self. They are so different. C'mon

Popper is a more serious player in the discussion of "objective truth" in science. The 'deductivist method' is intriguing and one with which I am much in agreement. But that's science; not ethics

2. "i wasn't going there anyway"

But you should go there; it's where your win/win discussion inevitably heads

3. "wy do you want some people to lose?"

There's a world of difference between the fact that people oftentimes fail to make expedient decisions, resulting in terrible sequences; and rather hoping that they do, to fulfil some quasi-religious scruple

C'mon]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:47:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9005 http://curi.us/comments/show/9005
Anonymous Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
so, relativism. you know Karl Popper thought there was *objective truth* and *objective knowledge* right? do you have a criticism of Popper, David Deutsch or Ayn Rand's arguments about that?

> won't take us to metaphysical muddles like Kantian "deontological" criteria of right action

i wasn't going there anyway

> I prefer win/lose

why do you want some people to lose?]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:26:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9004 http://curi.us/comments/show/9004
Win/Win Conrad Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
"the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving"("The Meaning of Truth")

2. "decisive in what way?"

The appeal to the expedient (or carries things forward in the stream of experience) won't take us to metaphysical muddles like Kantian "deontological" criteria of right action

3. "you prefer win/lose !? or lose/lose !!!!!??????"

No, I prefer win/lose: search for the most expedient will usually (if we're sensible) give us a winnable solution.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:21:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9003 http://curi.us/comments/show/9003
Anonymous Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
what's that?

> decisive role

decisive in what way?

> I'm not a fan of win/win scenarios

you prefer win/lose !? or lose/lose !!!!!??????]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:12:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9002 http://curi.us/comments/show/9002
Win/Win Conrad Can Win/Win Solutions Take Too Long?
I'm not a fan of win/win scenarios, I guess]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:10:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9001 http://curi.us/comments/show/9001
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
morality doesn't consist of trying to avoid costs, risks and punishments.

there'a also other stuff like not wanting to be a murderer, not wanting to hurt ppl, caring what is defense (objectively, rather than in court), trying not to shoot someone for emotional reasons, preferring voluntary interactions, not wanting to be a thug, and conceptions of *how people should treat each other*.

in the tire iron scenario you don't talk about these things much but the scenario itself is extreme enough to make them pretty blatant. then you focus on the threat of paperwork preventing you from shoot someone that, i think you're saying (it's not really clear or stated, but i'm guessing), in a better society, you *would* shoot.

but there exist other types of scenarios like shooting someone b/c they let their dog poop on your lawn and didn't clean it up. how should one think about that scenario? most of the answer is NOT about court, paperwork, etc. the main issue here isn't whether or not you'd win in court. if there was a new law on the matter so you would win in court and it'd be super fast and cheap (and they'd even pay you a reward), you still definitely shouldn't shoot him, b/c the moral issues about how people should treat each other still apply.

> The gun banners want what, exactly? That I *not have the ability* to shoot the guy with the tire iron. That, in such a situation, I be the one to end up dead or brain damaged rather than the aggressor. That's heinous.

many of them would agree that's bad, but think it's a worthwhile compromise to avoid some other shootings.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:48:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9000 http://curi.us/comments/show/9000
An Example PAS Bitcoin Sucks
Through several cycles of traffic he manages to drive aggressively and get around me. Then the next time traffic stops, he gets out of his car with a tire iron, comes back to my car, smashes the driver side window with it and, with the window gone, raises the tire iron again in preparation to hit me with it.

As soon as he got out of his car with the tire iron, I drew my gun in case it was needed. By the time he smashed the window, my gun was ready to shoot if I chose to.

The law and situational morality here is clear. A tire iron used against a person is a deadly weapon. He's shown a willingness to use it as a weapon and is imminently threatening me with it. I could shoot him, my conscience would be clear and in all likelihood the shooting would eventually be ruled justified self defense[1].

But if I think I can dive to the other side of the car then escape out the passenger side without losing my gun or him hitting me with the tire iron, it's better to do that than shoot him. Or if the sidewalk is clear of pedestrians and I can drive away over it, it's better to do that than shoot him.

Not just better for the would-be murderer, better for me. Because if I shoot him it's going to seriously fuck up my life for the next weeks, months, or even years while the case plays out. It's going to cost many thousands of dollars to mount a legal case defending myself. Maybe the media gets a hold of it for some reason and now a bunch of strangers are looking into my past for dirt that's useful promoting whatever agenda they have (anti-gun, anti-white, anti-pickup truck driving Trump voters, whatever). It's not certain the outcome of the court case would go as I think. If I try to shoot the guy with the tire iron, miss and hit an innocent bystander instead it's much much worse. Etc. These consequences are moral considerations for me just like the details of the situation itself.

But if I'm buckled in my seat and can't get unbuckled in time to avoid being hit with the tire iron, and there's pedestrians on the sidewalk, and I am otherwise out of options the moral course of action would be to shoot the guy with the tire iron.

The gun banners want what, exactly? That I *not have the ability* to shoot the guy with the tire iron. That, in such a situation, I be the one to end up dead or brain damaged rather than the aggressor. That's heinous.

[1] It's important to understand that some states have a legal duty to retreat and some don't. Arizona does not have a duty to retreat. If I lived in a state with a duty to retreat, I'd have to additionally show that retreat wasn't feasible because of stuff like the possibility of him throwing the tire iron, or my inability to get unbuckled or move fast enough to get out of the way. That'd put the eventual outcome of the case more in doubt. Which is why "duty to retreat" laws are bad IMO even though retreating is generally the best idea when it's feasible.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:57:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8999 http://curi.us/comments/show/8999
Morality PAS Bitcoin Sucks
I'll try the statement you quoted again, reworded with explicit moral references:

People generally know that even if shooting someone is moral considering only the facts of the immediate situation and the self defense laws, the full context of shooting someone involves costs, risks, and scrutiny that often make shooting immoral if you have some other available option that avoids dying.

That's more cumbersome, but I don't think it's different in substance from what I originally said.]]>
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:53:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8998 http://curi.us/comments/show/8998
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
People also care about morality!]]>
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 17:01:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8997 http://curi.us/comments/show/8997
Firearms PAS Bitcoin Sucks > Maybe in life-or-death situations, but in the developed world that isn't a daily concern,

Life-or-death isn't a concern until it is. It probably won't be a concern today, but you cannot fully predict that today will not be the day that it becomes your concern.

> and I'm not convinced that the best answer has to be the most lethal answer.

It usually isn't. Avoidance, de-escalation, fleeing, summoning authorities, non-lethal or less-lethal force, and even compliance with the criminal all have an important place in your tool kit of available responses. Lethal force is rarely the best option. But when it is, it is. And when it is, if you don't have the capability you're often DEAD.

> As I mentioned, though, I do think firearm freedom is a personal issue - if I can't go outside without feeling like I have a significant chance of being shot due to someone else being mistaken (*and acting in a way that destroys methods of correcting mistakes*), how is that not personal? Do you argue that *all* such dangers should be ignored?

How did you go from life-or-death situations not being a daily concern to being worried about a significant chance of being shot? I think there's some contradiction in your thinking there.

The reality is that situations that call for the use of a gun are *rare*, but when they arise nothing less than a gun will do. That is the context in which guns should be considered.

I live in Arizona. If you're not familiar, the US has some states that are more permissive about guns than others. Arizona is one of the most permissive states. You can carry a gun in public here, either openly or concealed, with no training and and no registration and no permit. I don't know statistics but I do know there's lots of guns around here.

Am I afraid to walk in public for fear of getting shot? Have I ever been shot, or been shot at? Do I know anyone who has been shot, or shot at? Have I ever shot at anyone else? Have I ever fired accidentally or seen anyone fire accidentally? The answer is no in all cases. Of course there's a certain amount of both prudence and luck involved in my ability to make that statement, but it's the most common answer even here in "wild wild west" gun-loving Arizona.

This is because people generally know that even if it's eventually found to be fully justified, shooting someone brings on a world of cost, risk, and scrutiny you'd best avoid if it's avoidable. So people generally take great care not to do it accidentally or by mistake when they have another option. And if they're the type of person who actually wants to shoot someone, a gun ban won't stop them.

People watch movies with criminals going around shooting people and think that's what life with lots of guns around is like. It's not. News reports cover big flashy incidents like mass shootings that are pretty rare. Like plane crashes, people can get the impression from news coverage that something rare is common.

If you think about it a bit you can probably correct this misconception. Unless you live somewhere really strange, knives are probably common where you are. Virtually every kitchen in the world has some knives that could easily be deadly.

Yet when you go outside do you think someone is going to stab you with a kitchen knife by accident? Ever had someone try? Ever stabbed anyone yourself? Maybe one of those things happened to you, but probably not. And if someone *was* interested in trying, a knife ban wouldn't stop them.]]>
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:42:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8996 http://curi.us/comments/show/8996
Anonymous Lots of Thoughts Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:35:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8995 http://curi.us/comments/show/8995 Anonymous Lots of Thoughts Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:02:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8994 http://curi.us/comments/show/8994 Anonymous Lots of Thoughts Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:00:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8993 http://curi.us/comments/show/8993 FF Lots of Thoughts Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:04:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8992 http://curi.us/comments/show/8992 ff Lots of Thoughts
I am not allowed to talk to Elliot anywhere.]]>
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:02:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8991 http://curi.us/comments/show/8991
Anonymous Lots of Thoughts
http://curi.us/1932-indirection#c7847

> Ironic you voted for Trump when he's going to eliminate Jews and Jew lovers like you. So much for ur kike cunt (((Alisa Rosenbaum))) and her philosophy which should be called Relativism because it's nothing but (((Einstein's))) Jew physics translated into Jew philosophy. Those other "Objectivists" like (((Yaron Brooke)) and (((Leonard Peikoff))) won't be counting their shekels for long...maybe it's time for you to jump off that cattle car, or are you a Jew too?]]>
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 21:35:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8990 http://curi.us/comments/show/8990
Anonymous2 Lots of Thoughts
I don't want to reveal my name.]]>
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 21:13:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8989 http://curi.us/comments/show/8989
Anonymous Lots of Thoughts
http://curi.us/1950-open-discussion#c8969]]>
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 19:50:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8988 http://curi.us/comments/show/8988
FF Lots of Thoughts Wed, 06 Sep 2017 19:10:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8987 http://curi.us/comments/show/8987 curi Bitcoin Sucks
*shouldn't exist* is harsh and wasn't my intent. but i'd e.g. advise people against investing in bitcoin. i expect a lot of people to regret their financial involvement with bitcoin.

the code and technical stuff of bitcoin is interesting and, while severely flawed, could certainly help inspire some better approach and some pieces of it seem like potentially good ideas.

@gun control – your statistics are ignoring tons of factors like how blacks, latinos and muslims are increasing US rape rates, and we have lots of big democrat-controlled cities with pro-crime policies and inadequate policing. also btw i assume you're ignoring prison rapes which are actually a big deal and which help demonstrate the problem of disarmed victims + inadequate protection by the authorities.]]>
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 23:16:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8986 http://curi.us/comments/show/8986
Max Kaye Bitcoin Sucks > how much of the current money in the bitcoin ecosystem do you think is there because of the value of facilitating legal commerce like that?

It's hard to estimate, but I'd expect a significant double digit proportion, but darknet markets probably also contribute a significant double digit proportion.

>> 2) Doesn't this argument apply equally against stocks, property (land), and commodities?
>the issue isn't what *could* be involved in a ponzi scheme (or what *could* be used for international commerce), but what bitcoin is actually being used for today and where and why the money is coming in.

Fair enough, but to argue that Bitcoin shouldn't exist on that basis would destroy methods of correcting mistakes - presuming that blockchain tech / Bitcoin has some capacity for that.

>>[Aside: I argue that liberal gun laws coerce me into an environment that threatens my bodily integrity, and I'm not okay with coercing people due to my personal preference.]
>As has been pointed out, disarming people primarily affects law-abiding citizens.
>Lots of people in rough neighborhoods can't protect their or their family's bodily integrity due to gun control.

Hmm. I can see the value in that, but I also think there's value in living in an environment with less potential violence overall. The US is not too much different from the rest of the world in terms of "rough neighbourhoods", but there's an order of magnitude more deaths due to firearms, so I don't think your argument tells the whole story.

> Another group whose bodily integrity is harmed by gun control is women. Women disproportionately benefit from access to firearms, since while few women can be as strong as men, any woman can be a great shot. So gun control meaningfully contributes to women getting assaulted, raped, and murdered.

This doesn't agree with the evidence [1]. In 2010 there were 28.6 rapes per 100,000 ppl in Australia (where there are tight gun controls; it's rare to ever see a handgun) and 27.3 rapes per 100k ppl in the US. If this argument were correct I imagine that would look different.

NZ is lower at 25.8
Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland range from 9.4 to 7.1

With a topic like this there are always reporting biases (in that rapes are often unreported) but I don't think that alone would account for the disparity (though maybe it does)

Then again, perhaps the problem is that *too few* women have guns in the US.

Why isn't mace or other deterrents an acceptable solution here?

> Firearm freedom isn't a personal preference issue. It's a life-or-death issue. A murdered-or-not issue.

Maybe in life-or-death situations, but in the developed world that isn't a daily concern, and I'm not convinced that the best answer has to be the most lethal answer.

As I mentioned, though, I do think firearm freedom is a personal issue - if I can't go outside without feeling like I have a significant chance of being shot due to someone else being mistaken (*and acting in a way that destroys methods of correcting mistakes*), how is that not personal? Do you argue that *all* such dangers should be ignored?

- MK

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics]]>
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 23:02:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8985 http://curi.us/comments/show/8985
Anonymous H1B Visas Mon, 04 Sep 2017 20:01:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8984 http://curi.us/comments/show/8984 My skills my price mkj H1B Visas Star bucks, Pizza Hut, McDonald, Pepsi,Coke, Walmart etc charging 30-40 times more then cog for there product in my country is Capitalism but when I reduce price for my skills then it is cheap labor and unequal paying field. Seems like a hypocrisy to me.]]> Mon, 04 Sep 2017 19:58:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8983 http://curi.us/comments/show/8983 curi The Uncertainty Principle Mon, 04 Sep 2017 17:58:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8982 http://curi.us/comments/show/8982 xkcd curi Open Discussion https://m.xkcd.com/904/
https://m.xkcd.com/978/
https://m.xkcd.com/985/
https://m.xkcd.com/1014/]]>
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 19:26:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8981 http://curi.us/comments/show/8981
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
As has been pointed out, disarming people primarily affects law-abiding citizens.

Lots of people in rough neighborhoods can't protect their or their family's bodily integrity due to gun control.

The people in the rough neighborhoods affected by gun control are often minorities. So they can't defend themselves from gang and other violence, and now with the anti-cop movement in full flower, the cops won't either. Which is just a continuation of the old pattern -- gun control came about on a large scale in America when southern states disarmed freedmen (so they could be lynched without risk or consequence.

Another group whose bodily integrity is harmed by gun control is women. Women disproportionately benefit from access to firearms, since while few women can be as strong as men, any woman can be a great shot. So gun control meaningfully contributes to women getting assaulted, raped, and murdered.

Firearm freedom isn't a personal preference issue. It's a life-or-death issue. A murdered-or-not issue.]]>
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:59:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8980 http://curi.us/comments/show/8980
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
how much of the current money in the bitcoin ecosystem do you think is there because of the value of facilitating legal commerce like that?

> 2) Doesn't this argument apply equally against stocks, property (land), and commodities?

the issue isn't what *could* be involved in a ponzi scheme (or what *could* be used for international commerce), but what bitcoin is actually being used for today and where and why the money is coming in.]]>
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 22:46:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8979 http://curi.us/comments/show/8979
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks Sat, 02 Sep 2017 22:42:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8978 http://curi.us/comments/show/8978 Max Kaye Bitcoin Sucks
Part of the historical reason for solidity was to have a JS like language, because that's what most people know. As it turns out this isn't so good when hundreds of millions of dollars of value are at stake, but things are getting better, slowly.]]>
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 22:21:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8977 http://curi.us/comments/show/8977
Max Kaye Bitcoin Sucks
- I can send money from the US to China to Cuba to Canada to Russia to Iran to Antarctica to France within a day, without oversight or permission. There isn't a fiat-currency equivalent I know of that is able to do that.

Arguing that it "sucks" based on current limitations is not an argument that ages well.

- Transaction fees are an artificial market, and everyone agreed to that (but maybe didn't realise the full consequences). However, the fact people pay these fees proves demand. *You* don't have to use it.

- Confirmation times are necessary in general: credit card payments can be reversed up to 2 months after the payment is made, cheques (not that common outside the US AFAIK) take days to clear and can bounce (at least w/ a bitcoin transaction the payee know the money actually exists and an attacker needs to do work to defraud them)

- The lighting network architecture solves both transaction fees and confirmation times by setting up a layer (payment channel) atop well crafted transactions that are able to be instantly updated and able to be settled at a later date. It's basically analogous to banking networks today, where regular folk sending bank-debt to each-other are operating on a layer, and the inter-bank settlement layer is where most of the heavy lifting gets done.

In regards to your criticisms:

1) Unless you're arguing that all laws are wonderful and upholding them is more important than allowing some forms of dissent, I don't think this is a strong argument against Bitcoin.

Do you argue against guns because some people use them to murder other people? I don't (even though I do think some form of gun controls are appropriate). [Aside: I argue that liberal gun laws coerce me into an environment that threatens my bodily integrity, and I'm not okay with coercing people due to my personal preference.]

If you don't apply the logic to other areas, why would Bitcoin enabling crime be an argument against it? (After all, other things that do this include: cash, gold, and [Tide](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-tide-black-market-2013-1))

2) Doesn't this argument apply equally against stocks, property (land), and commodities? Certainly you can use all of those to construct ponzi schemes, but just being able to use it in that way doesn't make all of those things ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes typically don't involve heavy comp-sci research or hundreds of thousands of hours (collectively) of coding https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#It.27s_a_giant_ponzi_scheme]]>
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 22:18:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8976 http://curi.us/comments/show/8976
curi ask.fm bans "rude words"
they selectively don’t tweet out your answers to questions from some anonymous askers and not others, based on some internal blacklist. this provides meaningful info to help you guess who asked a question. it lets you divide all askers into two groups, and one of the groups may very well only have a single person in it.]]>
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 10:18:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8975 http://curi.us/comments/show/8975
Anonymous ask.fm bans "rude words" Sat, 02 Sep 2017 10:05:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8974 http://curi.us/comments/show/8974 curi ask.fm bans "rude words"
fortunately, after the first answer was deleted, i saved a copy of all my answers. here's the pdf:

http://curi.us/files/curi42-ask-fm-sept-2017-archive.pdf]]>
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:34:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8973 http://curi.us/comments/show/8973
Anonymous ask.fm bans "rude words" Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:25:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8972 http://curi.us/comments/show/8972 curi ask.fm bans "rude words"
> i disagree

the question itself was racist:

> > wtf!! You don't care if blackies, brownies and tiny eyes rule the world? We need to stop that. Colored people have low IQ. No offence intended, No Racism intended.

so you aren't even allowed to *disagree* with racism on ask.fm]]>
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:20:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8971 http://curi.us/comments/show/8971
Ann Coulter on Twitter Open Discussion Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:14:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8970 http://curi.us/comments/show/8970 curi Open Discussion
> wtf!! You don't care if blackies, brownies and tiny eyes rule the world? We need to stop that. Colored people have low IQ. No offence intended, No Racism intended.]]>
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 08:50:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8969 http://curi.us/comments/show/8969
FF Open Discussion Sat, 02 Sep 2017 08:39:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8968 http://curi.us/comments/show/8968 Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 01 Sep 2017 10:12:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8967 http://curi.us/comments/show/8967 Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 30 Aug 2017 21:05:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8966 http://curi.us/comments/show/8966 curi [Excerpt] Humans live by their creativity, not by
btw there's a rule of thumb that the square root of the employees (e.g. 10 out of 100) produce 50% of the output at businesses. i think it's way more skewed than that (an even smaller group producing even more of the output) when it comes to stuff like philosophy and science breakthroughs, rather than business output.]]>
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:02:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8965 http://curi.us/comments/show/8965
Claude Shannon on creative thinking Alisa [Excerpt] Humans live by their creativity, not by
> A very small percentage of the population produces the greatest proportion of the important ideas.

> Now what is it that shoots one up to this part of the curve?

> Those two [training/experience & intelligence] I don’t think are sufficient. I think there is a third constituent here, a third component which is the one that makes an Einstein or an Isaac Newton. For want of a better word, we will call it motivation. In other words, you have to have some kind of a drive, some kind of a desire to find out the answer, a desire to find out what makes things tick. If you don’t have that, you may have all the training and intelligence in the world, you don’t have questions and you won’t just find answers. This is a hard thing to put your finger on. It is a matter of temperament probably; that is, a matter of probably early training, early childhood experiences, whether you will motivate in the direction of scientific research. I think that at a superficial level, it is blended use of several things. This is not any attempt at a deep analysis at all, but my feeling is that a good scientist has a great deal of what we can call curiosity. I won’t go any deeper into it than that. He wants to know the answers. He’s just curious how things tick and he wants to know the answers to questions; and if he sees thinks, he wants to raise questions and he wants to know the answers to those.]]>
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:33:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8964 http://curi.us/comments/show/8964
patio11 on Hacker News Open Discussion
Per capita spending on lotteries in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods is about ~$600 per year, of which the state of Illinois pays back about ~$100 to advertising agencies to continue to immiserate its own poor people, because if they don't constantly market the games sales go down.]]>
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:57:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8963 http://curi.us/comments/show/8963
Alan Forrester on Facebook Open Discussion
Many of the people who are most zealous to destroy the institution of freedom of speech are people with a lot of education in schools and universities that are widely held to be the finest examples of their kind. So by the first standard schools are a wretched and dismal failure. By the same token, they are also a complete failure by the second standard. You should take a long hard look at whether you think institutions that have produced such terrible people are worthy of your support.

Note also that while you deny that there are moral codes that hold for long periods, you are advocating putting almost all children into the control of an institution that is not set up to be good at considering new ideas and responding to criticism. Schools can and do respond to criticism with force and threats.]]>
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:18:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8962 http://curi.us/comments/show/8962
Lulie Tanett on Facebook Open Discussion
Is biological evolution problem-solving? But isn't it automatic?

When something is automated, that means it's following some program that instructs the automation. When an automation appears to overcome a new problem, what's actually happening is that the solution already existed in the program. (I.e., the knowledge was already there in the program, which then instructed the behaviour to 'solve' the problem.)

The reason biological evolution isn't 'automatic problem-solving' is:

1. That would require the knowledge to get *from the problem* (something in the evolutionary environment), back into the thing evolving (genome).
This is the misconception that Popper called "instruction from without".
To take an exaggerated, Lamarckian example: it's the difference between a giraffe neck evolving by selection pressure of genes ('within'), and it evolving by the tree being too tall and thus causing the giraffe to develop a stretched neck (tree height and giraffe behaviour = 'without').

2. There is no guarantee that evolution will solve any given problem. It's random.

"Automatic problem-solving" only makes sense in a limited way (e.g. when speaking loosely -- for instance, if you were speaking of an email organiser as automatically solving your email problems). New knowledge can't come from without, so either the solution is already there in the automation program, or it's creative instead of automatic.


As for 'blind' evolution:

In our minds, we may not be aware of our creativity consciously. Something started the problem-solving process. Being unaware of it consciously doesn't mean it's automatic -- it can still be 'directed'; it just means that this direction is happening at a different level / we may not be aware of it.

Biological evolution is a little different, because it's not 'directed', it's random. So, calling it "problem solving" may be misleading.]]>
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:18:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8961 http://curi.us/comments/show/8961
Lulie Tanett on Facebook Open Discussion
1. Definitions aren't just arbitrary -- definitions are summaries of *concepts*, which each have their own logic, consequences, problems, etc. [*]

So, if you tried switching to a different linguistic convention arbitrarily, it would cause problems: you'd be throwing away a concept that was doing something, explaining something, solving a problem, and replacing it with an arbitrary concept and expecting it to carry the same load.

It's the same as if you were to switch to flat earth theory. Suddenly, a bunch of existing explanations (about how planets move, and how seasons work, and so on) would stop working, and you'd have new problems to deal with (how come no one has fallen off the edge of the world, etc).

Popper challenges the classical philosophical definition of knowledge (saying it's not 'justified true belief'), and his conception of knowledge is something a bit closer to the layman commonsense view (which is admittedly mixed up with the classical definition, but it's something more like 'useful truth').

2. Why? What basis does he choose that "horn"? Criticism of the other horn.
JTB has various problems with it -- infinite regress, doesn't account for non-human carries of knowledge like books, leads to authoritarianism, etc. Popper's conception of knowledge solves many of those problems.

So the criterion is 'solves problems better'.

3. If you use the classical definition, that raises more problems. From logical like infinite regress, to substantial like authoritarianism. "Ideas have consequences" -- which definition you pick has an impact.

[*] At least in philosophy. This is more controversial if talking about mathematical statements.

So yes, in regard to (i), the traditional theory of knowledge must be dropped. The classical theory of knowledge is indeed not consistent with conjectural knowledge. (Which is okay, because it's false.)]]>
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:53:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8960 http://curi.us/comments/show/8960
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:12:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8959 http://curi.us/comments/show/8959 curi Explaining Infinite Sets, Measures, and Mappings for Quantum Physics
That could be true for that specific course, but it is **not** true in general that calculus is needed to understand infinite sets.

similarly, you do **not** need to know trigonometry to learn calculus – though some specific calculus courses might assume you know it and refer to it.

tons of algebra is also unnecessary for understanding stuff about sets or infinity. like i don't think you'd need to know factoring, the quadratic formula, or how to solve groups of multiple algebraic equations which share some variables. (you know how you can solve an equation with one variable, like x+3=5? but you can't solve an equation in two variables like x+y=5. well if you have two equations with x and y, then you can solve for both of them. or you can deal with 7 variables if you have 7 equations to use, and there's an organized method for doing that.)

what i'd do is just start on the stuff you actually want to learn instead of reading what they say the prerequisites are. i'd just read/watch several different things about sets. for each one, stop when you get lost. then see what the actual things you got stuck on are. that way you'll find the *real* prerequisites and only need to look at the prerequisites just enough to get unstuck. especially if something came up in several different presentations of sets – if something only came up in one then you can just ignore it and learn from the other material.

> I'm not opposed to doing a bunch of effort to learn something. But this seems like it'd be a multi-year project for me to follow up leads to get a sufficient grasp of this topic area.

if you have something better to do – e.g. learning more about epistemology, reason and critical thinking and then writing introductory educational material for it – go ahead!]]>
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:11:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8958 http://curi.us/comments/show/8958
Anonymous patio11 Criticizes Cryptocurrency Initial Coin Offerings as Investment Scams Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:09:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8957 http://curi.us/comments/show/8957 curi patio11 Criticizes Cryptocurrency Initial Coin Offerings as Investment Scams
then the people who made the cryptocurrency can say "we didn't organize a bunch of people to hype up this cryptocurrency". they had no direct involvement with most of the sales/marketing.

this differs from the boiler room model where a bunch of people do the scam marketing hype by making phone calls from one room. in that case, the organizers are blatantly guilty of organizing what's happening by hiring everyone, renting the room, etc. but with cryptocurrency, the organizers unleash it on the world, do NOT say "please now market this to suckers who will in turn market this to more suckers like multi level marketing scheme" and yet, due to incentives, that's what happens anyway. this reduces the provable-in-court criminal guilt for the organizers.]]>
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:02:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8956 http://curi.us/comments/show/8956
Anonymous Explaining Infinite Sets, Measures, and Mappings for Quantum Physics
>BTW I don't even know where this stuff is taught or good books explain it. I learned most of this from David Deutsch personally.

I looked for some material on infinite sets.

I came across an MIT OpenCourseWare course that talked about them.

It said calculus was a prerequisite.

I looked at the calculus course.

It said high school algebra and trigonometry were prerequisites.

I would need to learn all this.

I've learned some math kinda recently -- I worked through The Art of Problem Solving book for pre-algebra. But it was a ton of effort across a number of months.

I'm not opposed to doing a bunch of effort to learn something. But this seems like it'd be a multi-year project for me to follow up leads to get a sufficient grasp of this topic area.]]>
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:59:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8955 http://curi.us/comments/show/8955
Anonymous Open Discussion
a person doing "induction" only learns because he also did something that was not induction, and that something else is where/how all the learning happened.]]>
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:57:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8954 http://curi.us/comments/show/8954
Anonymous Open Discussion
----

the reason rote learning appears to work, in some cases, is the child also does some non rote learning (it can be in his head while doing the rote learning, or at a different time). the rote part is sometimes useful – in which case it could be done voluntarily – and often a waste of time and distraction.]]>
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:56:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8953 http://curi.us/comments/show/8953
Anonymous patio11 Criticizes Cryptocurrency Initial Coin Offerings as Investment Scams
>Here again we see the fundamental innovation of cryptocurrency, where the central actors can mostly truthfully claim to have never said it.

I didn't understand these parts]]>
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:55:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8952 http://curi.us/comments/show/8952
Alan Forrester on Facebook Open Discussion
Teachers who push rote learning are treating children as passive. The material is not aimed at solving any problem the child might have, and so it can't address such problems. The child is treated as an empty vessel to be filled with times tables or whatever. The only problem posed for a child by such "education" is how to avoid being punished for not repeating stuff correctly. This may require being able to repeat stuff, but it doesn't require understanding. Hence the common and well known phenomenon of a child passing an exam and forgetting most of the material shortly afterward.

Also, if the child is going to benefit then there can't be any harm in offering rote learning as an option, and allowing a child to refuse if he doesn't want it. But educators are so terrified of that option that they have willing to have the govt use force to make children come to school on pain of their families being punished.

You say memorization is a complex operation that requires creativity. This is true. Memorization requires wasting creativity on pleasing teachers. For example, you have to memorise educational material even when that material is stupid, as it often is. Teachers have a captive audience and don't stand to lose anything if they are wrong. So no idea pushed in school will be corrected even if it is not just wrong but positively destructive, except by sheer accident.

I do not favour reforming schools. I am in favour of reforming further in the direction of a free society with better institutions to correct errors. Schools in their current form are obstacles to that agenda, and would have to change beyond all recognition to have any place in a free society. They would be so different that using the same name would be misleading.]]>
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:25:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8951 http://curi.us/comments/show/8951
curi patio11 Criticizes Cryptocurrency Initial Coin Offerings as Investment Scams Sat, 19 Aug 2017 20:10:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8950 http://curi.us/comments/show/8950 kate Open Discussion
Yep. FI is the kindest, most valuable place in the world. :)]]>
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:20:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8949 http://curi.us/comments/show/8949
Justin Mallone on Facebook Open Discussion
Criticism is a gift, and really the best kind of gift if we're talking from the point of view of Popperian thought. Criticism requires forming a judgment about the thing to be criticized. Thus, judgments are a pre-requisite of the nicest sort of Popperian gift!

A person's ideas are who they are. Those ideas can change, and thus they can change, and thus their behaviors can change.

If you have a good approach to judging people and you judge a person negatively, it means you judge some of their ideas negatively. Same with positive judgments.

A person who has bad ideas can change, though. But it's impossible for someone to change if they remain ignorant to a criticism that points out a flaw.

Most people are irrational about criticism but this doesn't matter to the truth of what would help them most if they were going to be rational (which they'll need to be to improve).

If someone you know has some character flaw, one of the objectively kindest things you can do is judge them negatively and point them out, because it gives them the opportunity to correct the flaw.

Also important to improving is being able to engage in self-criticism without feeling bad.]]>
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:43:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8948 http://curi.us/comments/show/8948
cinder grill Anonymous Open Discussion
it’s more convenient than water sous vide for making steaks. no bag, no water, and it can sear without separate stove/pan.]]>
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:17:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8947 http://curi.us/comments/show/8947
kate Praise for Yes or No Philosophy
>She stood, patient, waiting, granting him nothing, not even the kindness of prompting him to hurry.

heh, people might think that being prompted to hurry would be unkind, but second-handers like Keating depend on and are grateful for social prompts and signals like this.

Rand is just so good. almost every sentence is a treasure.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:57:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8946 http://curi.us/comments/show/8946
curi Justin Kalef vs. Paths Forward
> I would be willing to address one of Rand's arguments that I disagree with

That was a lie. I provided exactly what he requested of me, but he hasn't done what he said he would do.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:42:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8945 http://curi.us/comments/show/8945
Wynand is asked a yes or no question, too Ayn Rand (emphasis added) Praise for Yes or No Philosophy There was no answer.
“Wynand, you know it’s that—or you have to close the Banner. You can’t keep this up, even if you bought us all out. Give in or close the Banner. You had better give in.”
Wynand heard that. He had heard it through all the speeches. He had heard it for days before the meeting. He knew it better than any man present. Close the Banner.
He saw a single picture: the new masthead rising over the door of the Gazette.
“You had better give in.”
He made a step back. It was not a wall behind him. It was only the side of his chair.
He thought of the moment in his bedroom when he had almost pulled a trigger. He knew he was pulling it now.
“All right,” he said.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:21:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8944 http://curi.us/comments/show/8944
Peter Keating deciding to Marry Dominique Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy “That’s all.”
He sat looking up at her for a long time. Her glance was on his eyes, but it had no more reality than the glance of a portrait. He felt alone in the room. She stood, patient, waiting, granting him nothing, not even the kindness of prompting him to hurry.
“All right, Dominique. Yes,” he said at last.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:19:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8943 http://curi.us/comments/show/8943
Roark rejecting the big commission Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy “Yes,” said Roark. His eyes were lowered. He was looking down at the drawings.
“Well?”
Roark did not answer.
“Yes or no, Mr. Roark?”
Roark’s head leaned back. He closed his eyes.
“No,” said Roark.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:18:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8942 http://curi.us/comments/show/8942
Dagny literally shoots a man for not deciding "yes or no" Atlas Shrugged (emphasis added) Praise for Yes or No Philosophy "Because it's your body that's barring my way."
"But I can't decide! I'm not supposed to decide!"
"I'll count to three," she said. "Then I’ll shoot."
"Wait! Wait! I haven't said *yes or no*!" he cried, cringing tighter against the door, as if immobility of mind and body were his best protection, "One—" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in terror —"Two—" she could see that the gun held less terror for him than the alternative she offered—"Three."
Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:15:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8941 http://curi.us/comments/show/8941
Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8940 http://curi.us/comments/show/8940 Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice.
But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:11:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8939 http://curi.us/comments/show/8939
Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:09:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8937 http://curi.us/comments/show/8937 Anonymous Praise for Yes or No Philosophy
> "Yes or no, Miss Taggart?"]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:08:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8936 http://curi.us/comments/show/8936
Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy "Now why use such words?”
"What I said at the trial, was it true or not?"
"It's going to be misquoted and misunderstood."
"Was it true or not?"
"The public is too dumb to grapple with such issues."
"Was it true or not?"]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:05:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8935 http://curi.us/comments/show/8935
Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy "You don't have to put it that way."
"Is it a fraud—or isn't it?"
"That's why I can't talk to you—because you're not human. You have no pity, no feeling for your brother, no compassion for his feelings."
"Is it a fraud or not?"
"You have no mercy for anybody."
"Do you think that a fraud of this kind would be just?"
"You're the most immoral man living—you think of nothing but justice! You don't feel any love at all!"]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:03:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8934 http://curi.us/comments/show/8934
Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy "That's a preposterous, high-handed, arbitrary way of-—"
"Yes or no?"
"That's the trouble with you. You always make it 'Yes' or 'No.' Things are never absolute like that. Nothing is absolute."
"Metal rails are. Whether we get them or not, is."
She waited. He did not answer.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:57:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8933 http://curi.us/comments/show/8933
Ayn Rand Praise for Yes or No Philosophy "We have not committed ourselves as to that."
"Did they decide it's no good?"
"It is the social impact of a product that must be considered. We are thinking in terms of the country as a whole, we are concerned with the public welfare and the terrible crisis of the present moment, which—"
"Is Rearden Metal good or not?"
"If we view the picture from the angle of the alarming growth of unemployment, which at present—"
"Is Rearden Metal good?"
"At a time of desperate steel shortage, we cannot afford to permit the expansion of a steel company which produces too much, because it might throw out of business the companies which produce too little, thus creating an unbalanced economy which—"
"Are you going to answer my question?"]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:56:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8932 http://curi.us/comments/show/8932
Anonymous Praise for Yes or No Philosophy
> "Francisco," she asked, when she brought him home, "what would your father say about this, if he knew?"

> "My father would ask whether I was good at the job or not. That's all he'd want to know."]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:55:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8931 http://curi.us/comments/show/8931
Anonymous Praise for Yes or No Philosophy
> A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?—Right or Wrong? Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow—right or wrong? Is a man's wound to be disinfected in order to save his life—right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power—right or wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have—and the answers came from a man's mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:38:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8930 http://curi.us/comments/show/8930
curi Is FI Discussion Mean?
It's hard if you're really bad at it. It's not objectively that hard. Those are different things. There are lots of things that are hard even if you're really good at them, like curing cancer or setting up a colony on Mars.

People get stuck. Getting unstuck can be hard. But the difficulty isn't inherent in the field of philosophy, the method of rational, critical discussion, etc. It's important to be clear about the difference between having a hard time with external stuff or internal stuff. A hard time dealing with the world, or a hard time dealing with your messy self.

> that people have mistaken ideas and emotional issues related to worrying-about/noticing/making mistakes.

that wouldn't cause nearly so much trouble if they weren't intolerant about the matter as well.

----

A guy at google got fired for writing a memo saying he values diversity of ideas and free discussion of issues, and making considered arguments regarding biological differences between the sexes. He was called sexist for trying to understand the relevant science and considering non Politically Correct views. The reaction proved his point about Google's PC culture suppressing truth-seeking, open debate, etc.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:28:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8929 http://curi.us/comments/show/8929
Anon69 Is FI Discussion Mean?
I'd say it's pretty hard if you have an emotional issue related to learning and you don't know how to address/improve the emotions. It's quite an unfortunate catch-22 situation.

If someone worries about making mistakes and feels bad when making them, and they don't want to feel bad, then telling them that they're making a mistake about mistakes is going to be tricky.

> > > People who find FI too mean are simply intolerant of people with a different style than them

> > So I think this misses the mark for the type of person I described above.

> but what you described is an intolerant person. there are other things involved, as usual, but the intolerance is front and center. they think something (criticism) is bad – for some reason – and then they are intolerant of it.

My point was that this sentence and the post in general isn't accounting for what I suspect is a major reason that some people think FI is mean: that people have mistaken ideas and emotional issues related to worrying-about/noticing/making mistakes.

> So do you think the women who stayed away from their work at Google cuz of the memo were acting correctly?

I saw some headlines this week about the google memo thing, but don't really know much about it. I can go read up and come back and/or you can summarize if interested.]]>
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:16:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8928 http://curi.us/comments/show/8928
FI discussion, Google memo oh my god it's turpentine Is FI Discussion Mean?
So do you think the women who stayed away from their work at Google cuz of the memo were acting correctly? They were offended by criticism of their ideas and stayed away rather than discussing stuff.]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:44:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8927 http://curi.us/comments/show/8927
Anonymous Is FI Discussion Mean?
> So I think this misses the mark for the type of person I described above.

but what you described is an intolerant person. there are other things involved, as usual, but the intolerance is front and center. they think something (criticism) is bad – for some reason – and then they are intolerant of it.

i'm guessing you're just so used to the PC concept of tolerance and intolerance that you didn't think about what the words mean.]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:43:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8926 http://curi.us/comments/show/8926
Anonymous Is FI Discussion Mean?
it's not that hard. people are bad at it basically on purpose. they don't want to learn those skills. they resist learning those skills. you can offer to explain it and they don't want it. that's why they are bad at them.]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:40:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8925 http://curi.us/comments/show/8925
Anon69 Is FI Discussion Mean?
> People who find FI too mean are simply intolerant of people with a different style than them

So I think this misses the mark for the type of person I described above.

> If you think something's mean, instead of getting offended, quote it and say what you think the problem is.

This doesn't seem like great advice (in the case I describe). It's possible this will eventually lead to them learning about the ideas/issues behind their emotions and mistaken assessment that FI is mean. If the person is very proactive and able to survive the emotional rollercoaster along the way without giving up. But it would be better to focus on ideas related to the main problem: that making mistakes make them feel bad (for various reasons mentioned above, and more).

Sometimes I think that FI is generally going to be a bad time for most people. It's treacherous like going rock climbing without any experience...you'd expect most people to get hurt. There's a bunch of these core ideas and hangups people need to master before participating in freeform / opened ended FI-style discussion.]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:07:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8924 http://curi.us/comments/show/8924
Anonymous Is FI Discussion Mean?
Some people, after step 1, don't think they *should* feel bad, but feel bad anyway. And they don't blame others. And they stop thinking about the issue so they stop feeling bad.]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:45:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8923 http://curi.us/comments/show/8923
Anon69 Is FI Discussion Mean?
Instead, many people believe you should feel bad/ashamed when you make mistakes (especially big ones like those discussed on FI). They also think: when you're having discussions with someone who is focused on criticism / pointing out mistakes, they might very well want/expect you to feel bad, as you would want of them.

It might also work something like this:

Step 1: Someone points out a potential mistake you're making.
Step 2: You become worried (often subconsciously) that the mistake might be true, which is something you should feel bad/ashamed about.
Step 3: Not understanding the ideas behind these emotions, you blame the other person as being mean, to explain why you're having these bad feelings.

Thoughts?]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:22:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8922 http://curi.us/comments/show/8922
Anonymous Destroy The Rainforest, or Capitalism!
https://mises.org/library/who-owns-amazon]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:14:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8921 http://curi.us/comments/show/8921
Anonymous Destroy The Rainforest, or Capitalism!
capitalism does prevent externalization of costs via the mechanism of private property – harmed owners can sue regarding demonstrable costs.

if you want to make things better, work to sort out the property rights.

and of course there are better ways to make money than dealing with a rainforest. non-capitalist policies get in the way of those, unfortunately.]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:14:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8920 http://curi.us/comments/show/8920
Externalized costs in the rainforest Larry Mason Destroy The Rainforest, or Capitalism!
I suggest that it may be that there are much better (less costly) means of producing the agricultural products that using the poor soil of the rain forest.]]>
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:04:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8919 http://curi.us/comments/show/8919
Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism
you forgot the 2 words where he wrote his full name. it's an even 100 ;)

of course he could make time to have a discussion if he actually had skill and interest in discussion.]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:57:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8918 http://curi.us/comments/show/8918
Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism
You're so wrong that it's not worth my time to explain WHY, yet I have more than enough time to write 98 words worth of rhetoric that boils down to "you're stupid."]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:41:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8917 http://curi.us/comments/show/8917
Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:38:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8916 http://curi.us/comments/show/8916 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:37:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8915 http://curi.us/comments/show/8915 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:37:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8914 http://curi.us/comments/show/8914 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:14:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8913 http://curi.us/comments/show/8913 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:14:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8912 http://curi.us/comments/show/8912 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:12:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8911 http://curi.us/comments/show/8911 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:10:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8910 http://curi.us/comments/show/8910 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism
without knowing anything about it, my suspicion is he was trained and competent at the field of marine navigation and shit

and he got unlucky or he made an error a trained person could make or he was lazy or some other thing training doesn’t really fix

falling asleep at the wheel or whatevs isn’t some kinda problem of ignorance of marine navigation]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:10:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8909 http://curi.us/comments/show/8909
Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:06:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8908 http://curi.us/comments/show/8908 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 17:01:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8907 http://curi.us/comments/show/8907 Anonymous Learning; Bad Syllogism Sun, 06 Aug 2017 16:33:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8906 http://curi.us/comments/show/8906 Exxon Valdez Lawrence Ambrose Learning; Bad Syllogism
If there was a category for "Delusional and Clueless Belief" in the dictionary, your name would surely be included as a prime example. You are beyond delusional; it's as though you're living in a parallel world where everyone lives utterly cluelessly, and you are worshipped on that world. A world which no sane person would ever wish to visit.

Larry]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 16:30:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8905 http://curi.us/comments/show/8905
curi Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball
Induction is common sense, yet false. People don't know much about how their own thinking process works. We don't object to what you're saying just because it's vague and non-technical, it's also mistaken.

Induction fails to explain how general ideas are created, which ones to create instead of others, how to choose between rival ideas, some steps a person could follow to do induction, etc. Steps like "generalize" aren't followable because they don't say what to generalize or how to do it. (So what people end up doing is creating generalizations with guesses and criticism, not induction.)

Criticism is necessary for figuring out which ideas are good or bad. To get good ideas we have to find and fix mistakes.]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 15:35:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8904 http://curi.us/comments/show/8904
Still confused Alan Nicoll Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball > Popper says you did use experience and learn, but you actually did it by the method of guesses and criticism which doesn't fit the inductive viewpoint.

Thanks for the quick response. I think you're distorting my (plain English) meaning to fit technical terms. I hope that's not necessary.

> With Popper, I hold there is no inductive reasoning.

It appears that "inductive reasoning" is intended in some technical sense which I did not immediately grok. This conclusion probably should follow what I wrote earlier, i.e., the following. If that's correct, then there's no need to read the rest here.

My experience leads me to "generalize" to the theory: "arriving five minutes early is efficient (or "good" in a Jamesian sense)." You could call that "theory" a "guess"; but then whence comes the "criticism"? I think it takes a philosopher to argue that my example is not an example of "induction."

My MacBook dictionary defines "induction" thus (in part):

"3 (Logic) the inference of a general law from particular instances."

It is my intention to communicate in "plain English" by default; I do not aim for "Popperspeak" or "technical correctness" or any other standard that I'm aware of. I'm not going to go off and read a book to continue this discussion--it's not that important to me. (I've read some Popper and Deutsch but claim no expertise. I'm a layman, not a professional philosopher.)]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 15:10:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8903 http://curi.us/comments/show/8903
curi Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball
Popper says you did use experience and learn, but you actually did it by the method of guesses and criticism which doesn't fit the inductive viewpoint.

I recommend David Deutsch's books to learn more about this.

http://fallibleideas.com/books#deutsch]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:00:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8902 http://curi.us/comments/show/8902
Induction? Oops Alan Nicoll Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:51:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8901 http://curi.us/comments/show/8901 Induction? Anonymous Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball
Seems to me I use induction or inductive methods all the time. I've learned that arriving at my bus stop five minutes before the bus is scheduled to arrive generally leads to a short wait before the bus arrives. Isn't this induction, i.e., anticipation based on experience?

I seek clarification.]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:51:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8900 http://curi.us/comments/show/8900
curi Popper vs. Impressive, Incomprehensible Writing
> Not only philosophy, not only Germany

I agree. For example, the book *Who Killed Homer?* talks about how the profession of studying the classics has been destroyed by bad academics, and it contains a bunch of quotes showing the fancy way they talk to impress instead of express ideas clearly. (Being unclear helps them hide the lack of substance their ideas have...)

I agree with your examples, too. And I don't like running into bits of untranslated French in English-language books I read. I think virtually all books should be readable by a person who only knows one language. In *Who Killed Homer?* there's some Greek and Latin text, but there's always a translation too. Greek and Latin original is only included, in small chunks, when the author thinks it will be useful for English speakers to see it (because he's talking about issues like inadequate English translations).]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:12:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8899 http://curi.us/comments/show/8899
Not only philosophy, not only Germany Alan Nicoll Popper vs. Impressive, Incomprehensible Writing
I'm a fan of Popper, but I'm not sure I've come across this opinion of his before. I completely agree.

More to my point, the late literary critic Wayne Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction (or possibly Now Don't Try to Reason with Me) criticizes other literary critics for writing incomprehensibly and encouraging it in others, notably in college. I think that Jonathan Kozol has explored this practice in our universities, in his The Night is Dark and I am Far from Home. Neil Postman must have addressed it as well in one of his many very readable and entertaining books, but I have no title to recommend.

I suppose I'm name dropping. But the problem is widespread in any field that aspires to look "intellectual" where standards are controversial and "progress" is illusory, or extremely slow (I'm thinking philosophy). Art criticism and the curating of art museums are notorious. But who can say that the critics are wrong (I'd go further and say "stupidly wrong") without alienating the "highly educated" and the snobbish? Book reviewers in the New Yorker and Bookforum tend to favor the use of "echt" and "louche" in preference to English synonyms, but the problem is much worse in books of literary criticism (which I've lately given up reading because it's a complete waste of time--I except the level-headed Booth). Unfortunately, the poison spreads; writers read the critics and write accordingly. New New York slang abounds in the New Yorker magazine for similar reasons. Or so it seems to me.

Foreign languages seem to me a way of distancing a writer from a potential reader; the writer seems to be saying, "If you're so benighted as to know no French or Latin, go away and get an education. I'm writing for a higher class of reader." There are historical reasons for expecting a reader to know Greek and Latin; but that history is now ancient and the reasons are out-of-date. A writer is entitled to select his audience (Virginia Woolf said that one writes for those few who understand), and a reader is entitled to select authors who "speak" to him/her.

The problem is vexing, but perhaps unimportant compared to current world problems.]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:03:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8898 http://curi.us/comments/show/8898
Philosophy: Who Needs It – Chapter 11, An Untitled Letter Ayn Rand Popper vs. Impressive, Incomprehensible Writing
An intelligent man will reject such a book with contemptuous indignation, refusing to waste his time on untangling what he perceives to be gibberish—which is part of the book’s technique: the man able to refute its arguments will not (unless he has the endurance of an elephant and the patience of a martyr). A young man of average intelligence—particularly a student of philosophy or of political science—under a barrage of authoritative pronouncements acclaiming the book as “scholarly,” “significant,” “profound,” will take the blame for his failure to understand. More often than not, he will assume that the book’s theory has been scientifically proved and that he alone is unable to grasp it; anxious, above all, to hide his inability, he will profess agreement, and the less his understanding, the louder his agreement—while the rest of the class are going through the same mental process. Most of them will accept the book’s doctrine, reluctantly and uneasily, and lose their intellectual integrity, condemning themselves to a chronic fog of approximation, uncertainty, self doubt. Some will give up the intellect (particularly philosophy) and turn belligerently into “pragmatic,” anti-intellectual Babbitts. A few will see through the game and scramble eagerly for the driver’s seat on the bandwagon, grasping the possibilities of a road to the mentally unearned.

Within a few years of the book’s publication, commentators will begin to fill libraries with works analyzing, “clarifying” and interpreting its mysteries. Their notions will spread all over the academic map, ranging from the appeasers, who will try to soften the book’s meaning—to the glamorizers, who will ascribe to it nothing worse than their own pet inanities—to the compromisers, who will try to reconcile its theory with its exact opposite—to the avant-garde, who will spell out and demand the acceptance of its logical consequences. The contradictory, antithetical nature of such interpretations will be ascribed to the book’s profundity—particularly by those who function on the motto: “If I don’t understand it, it’s deep.” The students will believe that the professors know the proof of the book’s theory, the professors will believe that the commentators know it, the commentators will believe that the author knows it—and the author will be alone to know that no proof exists and that none was offered.

Within a generation, the number of commentaries will have grown to such proportions that the original book will be accepted as a subject of philosophical specialization, requiring a lifetime of study—and any refutation of the book’s theory will be ignored or rejected, if unaccompanied by a full discussion of the theories of all the commentators, a task which no one will be able to undertake.

This is the process by which Kant and Hegel acquired their dominance. Many professors of philosophy today have no idea of what Kant actually said. And no one has ever read Hegel (even though many have looked at every word on his every page).]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 10:29:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8897 http://curi.us/comments/show/8897
Anonymous Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball Sun, 06 Aug 2017 10:26:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8896 http://curi.us/comments/show/8896 Anonymous Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball
Presumably the standard reasons: ignorance, lack of skill, and a career focussed on social status games.

Why have so few people come up with anything similar to Paths Forward? E.g. academic paper discussions follow a totally different ethos (and most don't discuss at all).

Because they are trying to fit in, advance their career, etc. Most "thinkers" do little or no original work, and just quibble over which contradictory mix of previous thinkers to accept. They try to sound smart rather than be smart – and that's adequate for the social status they want.

No doubt many of them would like to do better, and they try sporadically. But stuff gets in the way, and they back off before fucking up their life, and they go back to their rationalizations.]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 09:20:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8895 http://curi.us/comments/show/8895
Anonymous Analysis of Robert Spillane Quoting Roger Kimball
>Scientific laws, he says, "can never be supported, or corroborated, or confirmed by empirical evidence". He goes even further: of two hypotheses "the one which can be better corroborated, is always less probable." Whatever else these statements may be, they are breathtakingly irrationalist...

Why doesn't Kimball engage with Popper's actual arguments instead of calling him names?

From Chapter 11 of Conjectures & Refutations:

>some theories expose themselves to possible refutations more boldly than others. For example, a theory from which we can deduce precise numerical predictions about the splitting up of the spectral lines of light emitted by atoms in magnetic fields of varying strength will be more exposed to experimental refutation than one which merely predicts that a magnetic field influences the emission of light. A theory which is more precise and more easily refutable than another will also be the more interesting one. Since it is the more daring one, it will be the one which is less probable. But it is better testable, for we can make our tests more precise and more severe. And if it stands up to severe tests it will be better confirmed, or better attested, by these tests. Thus confirmability (or attestability or corroborability) must increase with testability.

what's his crit of this?]]>
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 07:32:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8894 http://curi.us/comments/show/8894
Anonymous Is FI Discussion Mean? Sat, 05 Aug 2017 13:35:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8893 http://curi.us/comments/show/8893 Justin Mallone Popper vs. Impressive, Incomprehensible Writing
>Many years ago I used to warn my students against the widespread idea that one goes to college in order to learn how to talk and write ‘impressively’ and incomprehensibly. At the time many students came to college with this ridiculous aim in mind, especially in Germany. And most of those students who, during their university studies, enter into an intellectual climate that accepts this kind of valuation - coming, perhaps, under the influence of teachers who in their turn had been reared in a similar climate - are lost. They unconsciously learn and accept that highly obscure and difficult language is the intellectual value par excellence. There is little hope that they will even understand that they are mistaken, or that they will ever realize that there are other standards and values - values such as truth, the search for truth, the approximation to truth through the critical elimination of error, and clarity. Nor will they find out that the standard of ‘impressive’ obscurity actually clashes with the standards of truth and rational criticism. For these latter values depend on clarity. One cannot tell truth from falsity, one cannot tell an adequate answer to a problem from an irrelevant one, one cannot tell good ideas from trite ones, and one cannot evaluate ideas critically - unless they are presented with sufficient clarity. But to those brought up in the implicit admiration of brilliance and ‘impressive’ opaqueness, all this (and all I have said here) would be at best, ‘impressive’ talk: they do not know any other values.

>Thus arose the cult of incomprehensibility, of ‘impressive’ and high-sounding language. This was intensified by the (for laymen) impenetrable and impressive formalism of mathematics. I suggest that in some of the more ambitious social sciences and philosophies, especially in Germany, the traditional game, which has largely become the unconscious and unquestioned standard, is to state the utmost trivialities in high-sounding language.

>If those brought up on this kind of nourishment are presented with a book that is written simply and contains something unexpected, controversial, or new, they usually find it difficult or impossible to understand. For it does not conform to their idea of ‘understanding’, which for them entails agreement. That there may be important ideas worth understanding with which one cannot at once agree or disagree is to them unfathomable.]]>
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 06:02:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8891 http://curi.us/comments/show/8891
curi David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss Tue, 01 Aug 2017 15:35:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8890 http://curi.us/comments/show/8890 Elliot Temple 25 Robert Spillane Replies
> Thank you for replying.

When I asked if that meant he wasn't interested, he admitted:

> Truth to tell, I am not at present interested in entering into any more discussions.

I also asked if he knew anyone who would be interested in discussing an improvement to Critical Rationalism, and he didn't have anyone to recommend or refer me to. Very sad!]]>
Tue, 01 Aug 2017 14:03:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8889 http://curi.us/comments/show/8889
incompressible bitstrings Alisa Anthony O'Hear on Popper
This was supposed to be a quote too.]]>
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:02:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8888 http://curi.us/comments/show/8888
incompressible bitstrings Alisa Anthony O'Hear on Popper [S]uch a bitstring doesn't exist. [emphasis mine]

True. For any string X, we can define a programming language L(X) in which the empty program is defined to output X.]]>
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 17:59:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8887 http://curi.us/comments/show/8887
Elliot Temple 25 Robert Spillane Replies
http://fallibleideas.com/essays/yes-no-argument

Hopefully he'll be interested in discussion this time.]]>
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 17:20:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8886 http://curi.us/comments/show/8886
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
Lots of bitcoin fans really don't know much about it.

If he does know much about it, then he has bad judgement.

If he doesn't know much about it, he still has bad judgement to get involved. But not as bad as if he actually was just totally fine with money laundering or something...]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:20:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8885 http://curi.us/comments/show/8885
FF Bitcoin Sucks
I regretted not buying bitcoin when it was cheap.

The Ransomware, child porn, illegal drugs,bitcoin problems I read on the news etc has made me lose all hope for the libertarian currency. ;-(]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:17:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8884 http://curi.us/comments/show/8884
FF The Pro-Authority Pledge
I accepted global warming on authority and now I am skeptical about it after making Elliot and Epstein the authorities. I don't want the planet to be saved by destroying progress and civilization.]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:08:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8883 http://curi.us/comments/show/8883
FF Open Discussion
Okay i will post my fountainhead questions on FI (with quotes).]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:47:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8882 http://curi.us/comments/show/8882
Anonymous Open Discussion
You'd get more discussion if you used quotes and if you presented your question on fi.]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:19:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8881 http://curi.us/comments/show/8881
ff The Pro-Authority Pledge
> do you mean that you don't *accept* everything authorities say?

Yes]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:59:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8880 http://curi.us/comments/show/8880
FF Open Discussion
I shouldn't have added the "40%". I should have just asked if my guess was wrong. Then just yes or no answer (with/without explanation) would have been enough.

Or I could have just asked the question without my guess. I have seen FI members don't like untangling messy thoughts.]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:56:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8879 http://curi.us/comments/show/8879
Anonymous Open Discussion
If somebody answered your question correctly, what would you learn? If nothing, then it's a bad question.

Your idea is either wrong or it's not. It's either refuted by one or more criticisms, or it's not.

your question is like asking: how many criticism of my idea do you know?

If somebody answered with: I know 5 criticisms of your idea, that doesn't help you learn what those criticisms are. It doesn't help you judge the criticisms.]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:30:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8878 http://curi.us/comments/show/8878
@ 8876 Anonymous The Pro-Authority Pledge
do you mean that you don't *accept* everything authorities say?

do you mean that you do *trust* some things authorities say? If so, what do you mean by trust?]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:26:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8877 http://curi.us/comments/show/8877
FF The Pro-Authority Pledge
I don't trust everything the authorities say.]]>
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 03:44:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8876 http://curi.us/comments/show/8876
FF Open Discussion Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:42:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8875 http://curi.us/comments/show/8875 Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-btc-e-virtual-currency-exchange-110-million-facilitating-ransomware

> FinCEN Fines BTC-e Virtual Currency Exchange $110 Million for Facilitating Ransomware, Dark Net Drug Sales

> Treasury’s First Action Against a Foreign-Located Money Services Business]]>
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:40:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8874 http://curi.us/comments/show/8874
Anonymous Justin Kalef vs. Paths Forward Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:45:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8873 http://curi.us/comments/show/8873 FF Open Discussion
My guess is that living for someone else causes suffering. Dying is end of suffering. Doing something risking your life is not a big deal compared to living a long life as a second-handed slave.]]>
Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:16:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8872 http://curi.us/comments/show/8872
Anonymous Bitcoin Sucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1JtJLRuqgo]]>
Mon, 24 Jul 2017 01:28:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8871 http://curi.us/comments/show/8871
curi David Deutsch = Footnotes to Popper
yes, DD's epistemology work is more than tiny footnotes.]]>
Sat, 22 Jul 2017 23:06:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8870 http://curi.us/comments/show/8870
Anonymous David Deutsch = Footnotes to Popper
Why did DD exaggerate? Why not take credit?

Afraid of looking arrogant? Afraid of losing social status?]]>
Sat, 22 Jul 2017 23:00:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8869 http://curi.us/comments/show/8869
Anonymous Critical Preferences
see my essays on the matter, e.g. the linked one above and others at http://curi.us/1595-rationally-resolving-conflicts-of-ideas]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 23:54:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8868 http://curi.us/comments/show/8868
Anonymous 25 Robert Spillane Replies
https://www.amazon.com/What-Science-Knows-How/dp/1594032076/

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Conjecture-Evidence-Probability-before/dp/0801865697/

His other books are on different topics (math, Australia, Catholic values) .

I think Spillane brought up Franklin because of Franklin's negative opinion about Popper, rather than because of some important argument Franklin made criticizing CR. Perhaps Spillane liked some pro-induction argument from Franklin which presumably, as usual, ignores some standard CR criticism of induction. Spillane also seems biased to favor Australian thinkers.]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 23:53:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8867 http://curi.us/comments/show/8867
Anonymous Critical Preferences that's a COMMON situation. you then have to brainstorm new solutions.


That is a proposal for action. What if you cannot come up with any proposals that work?]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 23:46:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8866 http://curi.us/comments/show/8866
Anonymous Critical Preferences
if you have exactly one non-refuted theory about what this objective truth is, and no criticisms of it, you should proceed accordingly. what else could you do? all alternatives are refuted.

your attempts to get around this often rely on using terminology which is reasonably understandable in general conversation, but not suited to speaking precisely about epistemology.]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:17:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8865 http://curi.us/comments/show/8865
Anonymous Critical Preferences
accepting an idea is an action, a human decision. whether or not you've investigated something enough to accept it, or you should be undecided for now and think about it more first, is relevant to human actions like this.]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:15:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8864 http://curi.us/comments/show/8864
Anonymous Critical Preferences
of course it is. it's an action you can take in regards to a problem. it may solve your problem, or not.

> The first scenario is that of accepting a scientific theory. The fact that you have one surviving theory, it does not follow that you should accept it. You can remain indifferent.

no, because being indifferent is a rival theory which is refuted (by premise of only one surviving theory).

> Since all possible proposals for actions have been criticised.

that's a COMMON situation. you then have to brainstorm new solutions.

if action becomes URGENT then you brainstorm solutions to the NEW PROBLEM of "what should I do about X situation, given that I am under this time pressure?" the new problems get easier as one more urgently needs a solution and therefore can come up with solutions like "X isn't ideal but b/c i have so little time left I'll take it." (in that way, and X you criticized previously may solve the new, easier problem.)

this is explained at e.g. http://fallibleideas.com/avoiding-coercion]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:14:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8863 http://curi.us/comments/show/8863
Anonymous Critical Preferences
No, it is not because accepting an idea is to do with whether it is true. A criticism is directed at its truth. That the investigation was not rigorous enough is not a criticism of the proposal.]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:09:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8862 http://curi.us/comments/show/8862
Anonymous Critical Preferences
Now we have to break this down into two different scenarios.

The first scenario is that of accepting a scientific theory. The fact that you have one surviving theory, it does not follow that you should accept it. You can remain indifferent.

The second scenario is one in which you in a situation where you have to act in some way to solve a problem and the idea is that there is one solution left and that doing nothing has been criticised. But this leads to a serious problem. And that is if it turns out that you have a criticism of this solution. This puts one in an awkward position. Since all possible proposals for actions have been criticised.]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:05:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8861 http://curi.us/comments/show/8861
Anonymous Critical Preferences
and if you don't think the investigation was rigorous enough, that is a criticism of accepting the one idea remaining from the investigation. so you, again, don't actually have the situation being discussed which is exactly one idea which survived criticism.]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:05:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8860 http://curi.us/comments/show/8860
Elliot Temple 25 Robert Spillane Replies
My comments on Paths Forward included that it's a philosophy essay I think is Popper compatible, and, "I would like to hear what you think, at least up to the first part you think is bad or false."

I'm glad to hear he answers some emails. Maybe I'll send him an explanation of my criticism of critical preferences and my solution.

I, too, understood Miller to be a CR advocate, so I don't know why Spillane was listing him like that.]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:30:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8859 http://curi.us/comments/show/8859
John Francis 25 Robert Spillane Replies Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:32:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8858 http://curi.us/comments/show/8858 John Francis 25 Robert Spillane Replies Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:23:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/8857 http://curi.us/comments/show/8857