curi blog discussion https://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
> To this day, most courses in the philosophy of knowledge teach that knowledge is some form of *justified, true belief*, where ‘justified’ means designated as true (or at least ‘probable’) by reference to some authoritative source or touchstone of knowledge.

BoI gives no source or details. I'm told that's inaccurate and that you can e.g. check textbooks to see that DD is wrong. Apparently, lots of courses teach that JTB is incorrect and point out flaws in it. I haven't investigated enough to say what's correct myself, but wanted to share the possible error.]]>
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:53:20 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20717 https://curi.us/comments/show/20717
Anonymous UK Conservative Party Isn't Very Conservative
Relevant https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/07/30/delingpole-et-tu-jacob-rees-mogg-rip-the-moggfather/#

![](https://i.imgur.com/7kCvLrN.jpg)]]>
Sat, 31 Jul 2021 13:46:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20716 https://curi.us/comments/show/20716
Justin Mallone Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://blog.justinmallone.com/checking-some-citations-in-the-ayn-rand-lexicon/]]>
Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:52:22 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20715 https://curi.us/comments/show/20715
curi Aubrey de Grey Discussion, 5
Also, I said ranking ideas = justificationism. Whereas now I'd say using positive arguments = justificationism. But I wouldn't want to call a ranking system with only negative arguments "justificationism".]]>
Sun, 25 Jul 2021 19:24:52 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20714 https://curi.us/comments/show/20714
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Issues_in_Science_and_Technology/qhlVAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=“science+is+what+we+have+learned+about+how+to+keep+from+fooling+ourselves”&dq=“science+is+what+we+have+learned+about+how+to+keep+from+fooling+ourselves”&printsec=frontcover]]>
Sun, 18 Jul 2021 18:29:30 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20713 https://curi.us/comments/show/20713
curi David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand
> DD made the context harder to check because he left out the source of the quote. In the past, in my experience, DD was great at attributing quotes accurately, and he thought it was important. (Edit 2021-07-16: I was wrong about this. See my article [Misquotes by David Deutsch](https://curi.us/2462-misquotes-by-david-deutsch).)]]>
Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:07:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20712 https://curi.us/comments/show/20712
curi Beginning of Infinity Website Removed in Protest
One was a guy I didn't know with an old account, who tweets primarily with CritRats including with Andy. They spread hatred enough to get people to come harass me at my spaces. The other was an obvious pseudonym.

There's also a CritRat plagiarizing me, who wrote two dozen tweets to Andy recently, and who won't respond to my communication.

Dear CritRats: Go away, stop reading my philosophy (if you hate me so much you'll use force against me, why are you so interested in my ideas?), and leave me alone. Stop coming to my spaces.

---

I'm posting this to keep some record of what's going on. They aren't stopping. It's a group effort from a bunch of different CritRats. And I don't think it's going to stop as long as DD encourages it.]]>
Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:36:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20711 https://curi.us/comments/show/20711
curi Deutsch Misquoted Turing Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:45:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20710 https://curi.us/comments/show/20710 Anonymous Deutsch Misquoted Turing
There are two UK intellectuals, both connected with Oxford, named "Michael Lockwood". DD's friend, who is cited in both of DD's books, appears *not* to be the royal society guy, though I don't know how to look it up properly because they're both referred to by the identical name.

https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/07/06/checking-szasz-quotes/#comment-22041]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:44:22 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20709 https://curi.us/comments/show/20709
Anonymous Deutsch Misquoted Turing
> Michael [Lockwood] is also distinguished for his use of spacecraft to investigate the flow of particles from one part of the atmosphere into another — the ionosphere (the upper part that can be ionised by the Sun) into the magnetosphere (the Earth’s magnetic field). His work allows the prediction of atmospheric behaviour.

They make it sound like he used spacecraft because he’s smart.

That is not what’s going on. Many people would like to use spacecraft. He got funding and assistants.

Did he get those by being the smartest scientist who could make the best use of spacecraft, budget the money in the best way, organize a team in the best way, etc? (Note btw that there are non-scientific skills involved there which are outside the specialization of someone who actually focuses their attention on science.) How do the funders decide? Here are two hints from the same bio about what funders look for:

> He has openly criticised those in the scientific field who do not see the need for human action against climate change. He has published several hundred papers

Most people don’t write several hundred papers themselves. He’s probably getting a lot of credit for work he got graduate students and other types of assistants to do. That’s generally more about social climbing in a “publish or perish” funding landscape than about productive work.

And scientists who get involved in current political controversies, and who specifically pile on to criticize dissent/disobedience regarding proposed government actions, are mostly social climbers.

A lot of the funding comes from the government, and goes to whoever can pose as a scientist – who can put on a show and get a scientific reputation – while helping enable government power and control.]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:29:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20708 https://curi.us/comments/show/20708
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
**Update, 2021-07-13:** I made two videos related to DD misquotes:

[Video about the Feynman misquote:](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kd5no7_Fy8) "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.". This video goes into more depth.

[Video about this blog post](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWf5v26x3SA) about DD's misquotes. This video is more of a broad overview.]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:07:27 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20707 https://curi.us/comments/show/20707
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
> ‘He thought,’ as Feynman once put it, ‘that he understood paper.’ But he was mistaken.

And DD said it in:

http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MathematiciansMisconception.pdf

> As Richard Feynman remarked: they thought they understood paper; but they didn’t.

But the wording there is different.

Web search:

![](https://curi.us/img/L5Nhxo9kPQVHB5D-1024x989.png)

First result is getting it from DD.

Second result is DD.

Third result is getting it from DD.

Fourth result is getting it from DD.

![](https://curi.us/img/C6S8Pgpo8Dj7geJ-837x233.png)

Fifth result is getting it from DD.

Next two results were irrelevant. I looked through some more. Found a few more DD-related hits, and more irrelevant stuff. And:

https://core.ac.uk/display/23312428

Which I suspected was DD-based. Found the paper via google scholar at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.364.877&rep=rep1&type=pdf

And they're quoting DD.

No one has an original source. DD never tried to give a source. The quote doesn't appear to have independent existence separate from DD. No one even posts it unsourced without mentioning DD.

I know it's old and not everything is on the internet, but Feynman and his quotes get a lot of attention, and DD cannot be trusted with quotes, especially unsourced ones, and especially in the context that there's ~zero chance he'll respond in a rational way and give a source if asked. (Someone ought to try asking for a source for it, as well as for some of the other quotes in the post above like the 3x typical Hawking chemical scum one, the TV from singularity Hawking one, or the Feynman fooling self one.)

You might guess the source is Feynman saying that IRL with DD present. But I've talked with DD about his interactions with Feynman. In summary, DD and Feynman didn't interact much. DD told me about their most notable conversation, which was short and was about Popper and education.

*Looks like a fake quote.* And even if it wasn't, there's no way for people to know that, so no one should use/spread/believe it (unless they manage to find out a source).]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:01:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20706 https://curi.us/comments/show/20706
Anonymous Deutsch Misquoted Turing
I was just talking with a friend about it before seeing your comment. I don't know if the math or physics in DD's old work is good. I don't know for other physicists either. Some people clearly got some things right somewhere (hence radios, GPS, nuclear power plants, some other stuff that *works*).

It's hard to check partly because I don't know enough math and physics. And partly because the information is communicated poorly and in a way that's hostile to outsiders and self-educated people. Which is ironic given that DD told everyone to homeschool.

They use lots of jargon, symbols and conventions without citing any source that explains or documents them all. Some are hard to look up, e.g. because you don't know the name of a symbol or it's a standard symbol but you don't know the special name for using it in that kind of formula. Also conventions change over time and the lack of documentation of what some stuff means adds not only barrier to entry but also makes the papers less timeless. It can be a big problem for expert mathematicians and physicists reading it many years later. I think it can be an issue on a timescale of decades, and also the issue is worse between different countries, and it's even worse if you're thinking about e.g. a mathematical historian trying to read this stuff 5000 years from now.

It's hard to get people to answer a large number of questions they regard as basic, and to consistently get answers. There are forums (like on reddit or stackexchange) that probably get annoyed if you ask too much and only answer half your questions because no one takes responsibility for answering stuff. So you get some answers but it's incomplete. And getting personal attention from anyone who actually cares to keep answering until everything is clear is ... hard. Alan Forrester will answer some stuff. Without him it'd be a lot harder.]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 03:59:53 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20705 https://curi.us/comments/show/20705
Dec Deutsch Misquoted Turing
When I see misquotes like the one in Deutsch’s paper that haven’t been noticed for decades, I wonder what else doesn’t stand up. Like has anyone actually checked the maths really carefully?]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 03:53:40 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20704 https://curi.us/comments/show/20704
Anonymous Deutsch Misquoted Turing Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:51:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20703 https://curi.us/comments/show/20703 Dec Deutsch Misquoted Turing
Here’s an instance of Deutsch’s paraphrase being confused with an actual Turing quote. This is from a Stanford University quantum computer science course:

> *Every “function which would **naturally** be regarded as computable” can be computed by the universal Turing machine. – Turing*

https://cs269q.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture1.pdf (p. 28)

They haven’t even cited Deutsch as the source. Here it looks like Turing is quoting someone and that he named the universal machine after himself. They’ve bolded “**naturally**” for some reason. All very misleading. Such bad scholarship in a prestigious comp sci course.]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:44:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20702 https://curi.us/comments/show/20702
Anonymous David Deutsch Wants to Control Others and His Reputation
In 1998, SFC introduced DD like this on TCS list, and used DD's professional reputation to promote TCS:

> I went to interview Dr David Deutsch, winner of the highly prestigious Dirac Prize for Theoretical Physics, and author of *The Fabric of Reality*, a best-selling book about the borderline between physics and philosophy. Many readers will have seen him on television -- on anything from daytime chat shows to "Reality on the Rocks", a television programme in which he talked about his work on the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory. You may also have read his article on the physics of time travel in the "Scientific American" in March 1994, or his wonderful commentary on Michael Lockwood's "'Many Minds' Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics": "Comment on Lockwood" (p. 222-228) in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Volume 47, Number 2, June 1996, OUP. David Deutsch is also planning a book on non-coercive education which will be of great interest to TCS readers. Far from believing computer games to be harmful, David believes them to be very *good* for children. I asked him what is so good about computer games.

She was reposting her [1992 interview](https://curi.us/tcs/Articles/VideoGamesInterview.html) with DD about video games.]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:40:51 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20701 https://curi.us/comments/show/20701
curi Deutsch Misquoted Turing
We never talked a lot. His involvement in TCS was more before I joined.

Later, he publicly called the TCS community an "idealist, right wing echo chamber that is hostile to criticism". He did not attempt to offer any serious critical arguments that I recall. He did not identify any criticism he thought had received a hostile response. He did not try to objectively document his claims.

He said he left TCS, philosophy and reason because he "developed other interests". Contrary to that statement, he then claimed that actually he's involved with philosophy. But he neglected to mention anything substantive that he's doing philosophically, he doesn't appear to blog or otherwise about philosophy, and he didn't mention any superior, alternative discussion places that he'd found.]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:35:02 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20700 https://curi.us/comments/show/20700
Anonymous Deutsch Misquoted Turing
The head editor of that journal, today, is DD's friend, Michael Lockwood (ML). I don't know when he became head editor. I searched briefly and didn't find a timeline for previous people in that job.

ML is a fellow of the royal society, like DD.

It strikes me as pretty incestuous.

ML's son is Nick Lockwood (NL).

NL used to post a bunch on TCS list.

NL hung out with both DD and SFC in person a lot. SFC talked about driving him around the UK countryside and showing him castles. Now his father, ML, is head editor of the prestigious journal that publishes DD's misquotes, and is in the same prestigious organization that DD got into.

https://royalsociety.org/people/michael-lockwood-11831/

> His findings are key for climate change studies.

I don't know if ML is really a climate change "scientist" (presumably a political propagandist) or the royal society just thought that was the best way to advertise his real, productive work.

ML was elected to the royal society in 2006. DD was elected in 2008.

It all looks like a bunch of social climbing with social networks, personal friends, personal favors, etc.

DD's royal society bio says:

https://royalsociety.org/people/david-deutsch-11329/

> In 1985, he wrote a pioneering paper that proposed the idea of a universal quantum computer, and then made some of the most important advances in the field, including his discovery of the first quantum algorithms.

That "pioneering paper" they're bragging about, which they themselves published, is the shoddy paper where he misquotes Turing.]]>
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:17:54 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20699 https://curi.us/comments/show/20699
Anonymous Harassment Summary
![](https://curi.us/img/MXYya9I2iQYbC1a-642x462.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/Pj1Wx8FeMutUouK-450x668.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/bU94ynBk9Bmbnsm-462x670.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/BpEzMg6XyoIT4bQ-458x713.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/LNBfO9QKuDe9yQN-455x532.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/AiCKVjNJlDDqCMD-462x731.png)]]>
Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:29:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20698 https://curi.us/comments/show/20698
Anonymous No Contact Request
https://twitter.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/1413486205786787841

> Replying to @ashik_shanks
>
> Thinking is the core of our perceptual process, not an extension. And thinking is not primarily the accumulation of *data*, but the *creation* of knowledge. Otherwise, yes.

Searching, I see that DD has tweeted to Ashik at least 12 times (9 direct replies, 3 just tags):

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adaviddeutschoxf%20ashik_shanks

There's a recurring pattern where the people DD tweets with, and the people harassing Elliot, are the same people.

What is DD telling them privately? DD hasn't even claimed that his private communications with these people are innocent and don't encourage harassment.]]>
Mon, 12 Jul 2021 21:24:29 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20697 https://curi.us/comments/show/20697
curi Deutsch Misquoted Turing
> To be acceptable for publication a paper should represent a significant advance in its field, rather than something incremental.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/for-reviewers

> Manuscripts that lack novelty or only present an incremental advance over previous work are not acceptable.

That anti-incremental-progress attitude is bad.]]>
Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:44:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20696 https://curi.us/comments/show/20696
curi Deutsch Misquoted Turing
> **Reviewing instructions**

> Attention should be paid to:

> References — these should be appropriate, relevant, and devoid of unnecessary self-citations.

That doesn't specifically say to check the references for accuracy. Maybe they take it for granted that the authors will quote and cite accurately? Or takes for granted that reviewers know to check for that? Or they don't care? They ought to instruct reviewers to check.

> If you have any suspicion of misconduct please alert the Editorial Office as soon as possible. This can include fabrication of results, plagiarism, duplicate publication, incorrect authorship or any other area of concern.

OK. I think publishing false quotes is a type of misconduct, so I emailed them as they requested.]]>
Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:42:54 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20695 https://curi.us/comments/show/20695
curi Deutsch Misquoted Turing
It's like if you cite page 4,050, that should stand out as a possible error to a reviewer familiar with books. How many books have 4000+ pages? It'd have to be like a 10 volume set that carried over page numbers between volumes, or maybe some recent ebook is that long. If the cite didn't mention e.g. volume 8, that'd be an additional clue.

You'd expect peer reviewers to be familiar with the context of what journal volume numbers are reasonable and to be able to catch an error like this. They should be used to e.g. many journals doing one volume per year or a similar amount, and no journals being 400+ years old. (The [oldest journal](https://blogs.brown.edu/libnews/philosophical-transactions/) appears to be 356 years old in 2021 and to have reached [volume 376](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rstb/2021/376/1832).) But apparently peer reviewers don't know stuff like that or don't pay attention or something?

I caught the cite error despite lacking familiarity with stuff like journal volume numbering conventions. A peer reviewer should have been in a better position than me to catch it.

Do peer reviewers not bother to fact check citations? Do they just skip reviewing some parts of what's being published? But they want us to trust stuff because it's peer reviewed?]]>
Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:20:15 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20694 https://curi.us/comments/show/20694
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:52:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20693 https://curi.us/comments/show/20693 Anonymous Harassment Summary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Cs5iNazB8]]>
Sun, 11 Jul 2021 21:31:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20692 https://curi.us/comments/show/20692
Anonymous Harassment Summary Sun, 11 Jul 2021 21:25:50 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20691 https://curi.us/comments/show/20691 Anonymous No Contact Request
Step 2: Delete your YouTube comments when you realize (or your buddy Andy B messages you and tells you) that harassing curi makes him look correct.]]>
Sun, 11 Jul 2021 20:27:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20690 https://curi.us/comments/show/20690
Anonymous No Contact Request Sun, 11 Jul 2021 20:21:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20689 https://curi.us/comments/show/20689 Justin Mallone No Contact Request Sun, 11 Jul 2021 19:17:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20688 https://curi.us/comments/show/20688 curi No Contact Request
But now that I see DD was gossiping, in 2011, to a person who was nasty to me, to suggest that my community was smaller than it looked and populated by lots of my sockpuppets. (The account in question wasn't me, btw.) Maybe DD is the original source of Andy B's false belief about my use of sockpuppets.

Similarly, DD's recent lie to Justin about me violating no contact requests from him was echoed by Andy years earlier. It seems like DD has spread some stuff around and then the community, including Andy B, heard it and believed it.]]>
Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:24:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20687 https://curi.us/comments/show/20687
curi No Contact Request
He also trashed MWI and I didn't know, in 2012, why DD put up with him (still don't know). Lulie said "He always trashes MWI. I don't either [know why DD puts up with him] but I think he's a bad influence on DD."

![](https://curi.us/img/WUDdIEO9WXOUpoW-932x898.png)

I'd forgotten about this. They've done so much I can't even remember it all. Good thing I can search emails... The CritRats had multiple people contacting my community members offlist to attack me before Andy ever showed up. They've been running a shadow campaign for a long time.

Also found this information from Lulie that DD was gossiping about me and violating my privacy, to Matjaz, IRL, in 2011 before he even broke with me.

![](https://curi.us/img/ABwRaAnwGRKGdfX-1306x471.png)

What I was trying to find is whether Matjaz was ban evading with Psevdo Nim. Didn't find info one way or the other. But he was at least evading his reputation and tricking me on purpose. I didn't like him, and he's repeatedly mistreated me, and then he changed names to fool me for a while.]]>
Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:00:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20686 https://curi.us/comments/show/20686
Anonymous No Contact Request Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:41:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20685 https://curi.us/comments/show/20685 curi No Contact Request
[Video: Talking About David Deutsch and Andy B Harassment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByzhjPWl3k)

![](https://curi.us/img/Gw4U9znfldkqaJg-606x365.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/7YKHeSMMeTJqNRc-1017x539.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/ij8cPYy5nfg9EFD-1012x489.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/88628lxwt43NEUY-615x291.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/bshBp1nl6UbDVzZ-672x301.png)

https://www.youtube.com/user/ashikpanigrahi/about

His Twitter appears to be:

https://twitter.com/ashik_shanks

I see that he is following Andy B and many CritRats:

![](https://curi.us/img/of8huGyQmknRz8t-1087x368.png)

And he tweeted Andy B recently:

![](https://curi.us/img/QF03P8tPdADAy96-642x205.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/kZdmZd9fFu5weHN-1066x279.png)

![](https://curi.us/img/sj5HTpZFbZssPsW-1050x229.png)

There's probably more but Andy B is hiding his tweets from the public currently so they won't all show up, plus Andy B changed his Twitter handle repeatedly so I'd have to search for other handles to find more, which I haven't done.

While I was writing this, YouTube said there were 7 comments on the video. None showed up. I don't know why. I don't know what the other 3 comments were. I didn't get email notifications for them.

Then Alan posted a comment ("Is YouTube hiding all comments on this video?") and now it says only 1 comment on the video.

While writing this, I was informed that one of the deleted/disappeared comments was:

> [From:] Alan Forrester
>
> @ashik dragneel  You're claiming this harassment is in Elliot's imagination: do you have a refutation of what Elliot is saying and if so where is it?]]>
Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:25:46 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20684 https://curi.us/comments/show/20684
curi Harassment Summary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByzhjPWl3k]]>
Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:41:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20683 https://curi.us/comments/show/20683
curi Beginning of Infinity Website Removed in Protest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByzhjPWl3k]]>
Sun, 11 Jul 2021 08:40:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20682 https://curi.us/comments/show/20682
curi Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
https://curi.us/2466-fallible-justificationism]]>
Sat, 10 Jul 2021 19:26:34 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20681 https://curi.us/comments/show/20681
Anonymous Harassment Summary
https://twitter.com/reason_wit_me/status/1413869138154508289

[From] Lucas Smalldon
@reason_wit_me

Thank you
@paligap17
and
@SeekingApatheia
for highlighting the confusing usage of "infinitely" in my original post. Update for clarity, below:

Original: "a fallible entity is infinitely error prone"
Updated: "a fallible entity is limitlessly error prone"

https://barelymorethanatweet.com/2021/07/09/the-binary-logic-of-fallibility/]]>
Sat, 10 Jul 2021 18:16:17 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20680 https://curi.us/comments/show/20680
Anonymous Harassment Summary
https://barelymorethanatweet.com/2021/07/09/the-binary-logic-of-fallibility/

Guy is tweeting about how he's taking feedback from Andy B on the post.

See e.g. Elliot's:

https://www.yesornophilosophy.com]]>
Sat, 10 Jul 2021 18:14:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20679 https://curi.us/comments/show/20679
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch Fri, 09 Jul 2021 20:00:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20678 https://curi.us/comments/show/20678 curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://criticalfallibilism.com/practice-and-mastery/

I wrote it before the recent misquotes stuff. Then when reviewing it today, I saw a quote sourced to the lexicon and figured I better check it... Now I have the same quote, and a second one, sourced to Rand's books.]]>
Fri, 09 Jul 2021 19:34:08 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20677 https://curi.us/comments/show/20677
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch Fri, 09 Jul 2021 19:23:34 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20676 https://curi.us/comments/show/20676 curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
Also, Wikipedia is wrong that the 2nd edition of RM came out in 1975. The 1971 version I checked out from archive.org is the second, revised edition.

That's important b/c in the Lexicon book HB said his paperback RM cites were to the 2nd edition and also he said 1971 edition, so if Wikipedia were correct than HB would have screwed up. But actually Wikipedia is just giving a wrong year and can't be trusted for basic facts.

In the original book, HB gives separate page numbers for hardback and paperback editions for some books. Nice level of detail!

So in the original book, all four quotes about automization are perfect. The text is exactly right including punctuation, and the cites are correct too. (I did not verify the page numbers for the cites to other books besides RM.)

I emailed HB a second time with this updated info.]]>
Fri, 09 Jul 2021 19:22:41 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20675 https://curi.us/comments/show/20675
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
And the second quote on the lexicon page shows the cover for the 2nd edition of RM, and the book link goes to an info page with the 2nd ed cover and a buy link to the 2nd ed on amazon. It's a correct quote, but the page number (36) matches the first edition not the second edition (where it's 26).

I have emailed HB about it. But he may remember me from when he banned me from his forum and I wrote https://curi.us/1930-harry-binswanger-refuses-to-think]]>
Fri, 09 Jul 2021 18:54:11 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20674 https://curi.us/comments/show/20674
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/psycho-epistemology/

> “Learning to speak is a process of automatizing the use (i.e., the meaning and the application) of concepts. And more: all learning involves a process of automatizing, i.e., of first acquiring knowledge by fully conscious, focused attention and observation, then of establishing mental connections which make that knowledge automatic (instantly available as a context), thus freeing man’s mind to pursue further, more complex knowledge.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.)

And I searched my ItOE ebook and it's an exact match.

So it's a real Rand quote, but from a different book.

That is the second time I'm aware of that HB gave a correct quote but attributed it to the wrong book. He also did it with a Popper quote (which he took out of context and mischaracterized – he hates Popper btw – but according to my memory the words he gave did match a different Popper book).]]>
Fri, 09 Jul 2021 18:43:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20673 https://curi.us/comments/show/20673
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Romantic_Manifesto

> It was first published in 1969, with a second, revised edition published in 1975.

And:

> A paperback edition was published by New American Library in 1971.[3] The revised edition in 1975 added the essay "Art and Cognition".[4]

OK I managed to borrow the 1971 version from archive.org, and found stuff on page 36, but it's the same as in the newer edition:

https://archive.org/details/romanticmanifest00rand/page/36/mode/2up

!()[https://curi.us/img/DkzErU6UC9Ha5Ko-1398x1269.png]

Misquote??

The quote given by the lexicon is really nice and I'm not sure HB could make up a Rand quote that good... Still thinking it might have a source from Rand somewhere.

Maybe it's from a different book and he attached the wrong source to it (the identical one as the next quote).

Gonna look more.]]>
Fri, 09 Jul 2021 18:40:17 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20672 https://curi.us/comments/show/20672
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
There are many different covers on Bing image search:

![](https://curi.us/img/oJQm0yjSGDniRfW-1477x1024.png)]]>
Fri, 09 Jul 2021 18:25:27 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20671 https://curi.us/comments/show/20671
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch Fri, 09 Jul 2021 18:21:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20670 https://curi.us/comments/show/20670 curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/automatization.html

The first one is so different that I suspect it's from a different edition of the book. The other three match exactly.

The edition issue is problematic because they have a picture of the centennial edition and link to it on Amazon, but that's the edition I checked in paper (and my ebook matched it, too).

The page number is also wrong for the centennial paperback: lexicon says p36 but it's p26.

In my edition, the second quote on the page is the previous sentence before the first quote, and is on p26 not p36 as claimed. But the text is the same.

Here's a paste from my ebook, which is from p26 in my paper copy:

> The function of psychological integrations is to make certain connections automatic, so that they work as a unit and do not require a conscious process of thought every time they are evoked. (All learning consists of automatizing one’s knowledge in order to leave one’s mind free to pursue further knowledge.) There are many special or “cross-filed” chains of abstractions (of interconnected concepts) in man’s mind.]]>
Fri, 09 Jul 2021 18:17:34 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20669 https://curi.us/comments/show/20669
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch Thu, 08 Jul 2021 21:20:39 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20668 https://curi.us/comments/show/20668 curi Harassment Summary
Made forum megathread for discussing this stuff:

https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/david-deutsch-megathread/221]]>
Thu, 08 Jul 2021 19:52:15 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20667 https://curi.us/comments/show/20667
oh my god it's turpentine Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/07/06/checking-szasz-quotes/]]>
Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:08:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20666 https://curi.us/comments/show/20666
curi Harassment Summary Tue, 06 Jul 2021 18:49:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20665 https://curi.us/comments/show/20665 curi Harassment Summary
It could involve a bias like he double checks quotes when they sound bad to him, but doesn't double check when they sound good to him. And also he's more likely to typo stuff in ways that sound good to him. And also he thinks certain types of edits, like changing punctuation, are OK.

There are so many wording changes it's hard to think they're all typos he missed due to bias in favor of changes that sound good to him. It seems like maybe he decided changing wordings in quotes is OK. But i don't know.

It seems like he had some kinda attitude change b/c in FoR a bunch of quotes have sources *with page numbers*, whereas IIRC he never gives page numbers in BoI.

DD ought to provide an explanation, himself, of what he thinks happened with all the misquotes, and what his current attitude is (e.g. does he think he screwed up and will they all be fixed in a second edition? or would he actually defend some of it?).]]>
Tue, 06 Jul 2021 18:42:29 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20664 https://curi.us/comments/show/20664
Anonymous Harassment Summary
I'm also kind of amazed how unprofessional people feel comfortable acting in public forums.]]>
Tue, 06 Jul 2021 02:04:15 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20663 https://curi.us/comments/show/20663
curi Harassment Summary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCKDV6zIoNw]]>
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 23:38:19 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20662 https://curi.us/comments/show/20662
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
I think he did have the skill to find wording differences if he triple checked the quotes. He could have gone back and forth between the paper book and the text of BoI, one word at a time, and marked his place in each (highlight a word on the computer and use a physical marker in the book) and found and corrected the errors. I think he had the skill to do that – to look at the words one by one and see if they match – but he choose not to do it. Some of the skills he might be lacking include the ability to type in quotes accurately the first time or to recognize when he should double check his quoting (some people have a good sense for when they typo, plus DD could recognize that he should always double check his quotes when they are for important publications like a book).]]>
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:00:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20661 https://curi.us/comments/show/20661
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch Mon, 05 Jul 2021 19:50:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20660 https://curi.us/comments/show/20660 curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
DD changed "it is" to "they are" in "understand why it is there".

DD changed a "this" to "that" in "Pursuing this inquiry".

DD omitted the word "fully" in "understand fully why".

DD put "You" in square brackets, when it wasn't changed. He should have put an ellipsis. He was leaving out two sentences, so an ellipsis, not a square bracket, is the correct way to do that.

He put a three dot ellipsis where a sentence ended, so there should be four dots there.

I checked paper copies of both books. In these hardbacks, it's FoR pp. 22-23 and BoI pp. 109-110.

I'll have to edit the blog post to add this.]]>
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 19:33:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20659 https://curi.us/comments/show/20659
Andy Dufresne Misquotes by David Deutsch
"This reminded me of Deutsch's example of the copper atom at the tip of the nose of the statue of Winston Churchill. However:" is me, not the summary.

The double quoted paragraph that follows is a quote from the summary quoting Quine.]]>
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 18:50:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20658 https://curi.us/comments/show/20658
Andy Dufresne Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://iep.utm.edu/quine-sc/
> Without abstract objects we would be unable to accommodate mathematics within our overall system of knowledge, and so would deprive ourselves of such knowledge within natural science.

I remember BoI using the example of prime numbers as an abstraction we can't do without.

> Quine further formulates his physicalism as the view that there is no difference without a physical difference. That is, nothing happens in the world without a redistribution of microphysical states (Quine 1981, 98). Importantly, this does not result in a strict form of reductive physicalism, where, for example, we might claim that a particular type of physical event occurs when someone thinks about their vacation in Mexico. Rather, Quine advocates a form of what is often called “nonreductive physicalism,” in which various vocabularies, including intentional descriptions, cannot be reduced to the language of physics, but that each particular mental event can be identified with a specific physical event. This reminded me of Deutsch's example of the copper atom at the tip of the nose of the statue of Winston Churchill. However: > He emphasizes the way human knowledge is a means for the prediction of observation or, more technically, of sensory stimulation:
> > Our talk of external things, our very notion of things, is just a conceptual apparatus that helps us foresee and control the triggering of our sensory receptors in the light of previous triggering of sensory receptors. The triggering, first and last, is all that we have to go on. (1981, 1)

Deutsch strongly contradicts this with BoI's main theme that what is important is not prediction but explanation.

I think the Churchill statue example is one which highlights the difference well: Abstract concepts like war and leadership seem pretty useless for predicting there will be a copper atom at a particular location. But the abstract concepts are indispensable for explaining why the copper atom is at the particular location once it's there.]]>
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 18:46:40 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20657 https://curi.us/comments/show/20657
curi Harassment Summary
i'd still prefer deescalation. i wish any CritRats would get in touch with me about conflict resolution.]]>
Sun, 04 Jul 2021 21:37:44 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20656 https://curi.us/comments/show/20656
curi Sam Harris on Defamation; Comments on David Deutsch and Others Defaming Me Sun, 04 Jul 2021 20:09:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20655 https://curi.us/comments/show/20655 Justin Mallone Misquotes by David Deutsch Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:51:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20654 https://curi.us/comments/show/20654 curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/07/04/popper-quote-checking/]]>
Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:48:17 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20653 https://curi.us/comments/show/20653
curi Misquotes by David Deutsch
> Also Deutsch doesn't give credit to Quine for his reality of abstractions idea.

I haven't read Quine. Anyone want to investigate or blog about it?]]>
Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:44:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20652 https://curi.us/comments/show/20652
curi Lulie Tanett Defended Me
To clarify, the parenthetical is a guess about how this makes any sense. I included it because it's unusual otherwise. And Sarah literally ran a polyamory discussion group and was very public about that stuff, so that's why I thought it was OK to share it.

I have no direct knowledge about whether Sarah and Kevin ever slept together or not. I never asked either of them, or Lulie, that question. I just kinda assume they did because the many long visits make more sense that way, but that's pure speculation and I don't really care, I just wanted to give enough information for the basic story to be plausible to other people.]]>
Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:33:41 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20651 https://curi.us/comments/show/20651
curi Harassment Summary
btw some ppl seem to think "ofc he's mad; you wrote a bunch of negative posts about him" but they aren't thinking about the timeline. harassment came first, then i tried to talk with DD privately, then later I wrote stuff, mostly after DD defamed me. the harassment problem has been ongoing for years and won't stop regardless of what i do or don't do, and I prefer to tell my story and give people the opportunity to understand and judge.]]>
Sat, 03 Jul 2021 19:20:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20650 https://curi.us/comments/show/20650
Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> “The condition of a … slave in the West-Indies, is in many respects preferable to that of the youthful son of a free-born European. The slave is purchased upon a view of mercantile speculation; and, when he has finished his daily portion of labour, his master concerns himself no further about him. But the watchful care of the parent is endless. The youth is never free from the danger of grating interference.”
>
> William Godwin, 1797, 1823, The Enquirer, Part I: Essay VIII: Of the happiness of youth, p. 60

It's discussed in https://curi.us/2455-david-deutsch-and-sarah-fitz-claridge-publish-misquotes#10

That proves they read not just the blog posts here but the comments too.]]>
Thu, 01 Jul 2021 22:54:28 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20649 https://curi.us/comments/show/20649
Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
Search "slave" on https://www.fitz-claridge.com/quotations/ and https://archive.is/rIcM3 to compare.

That shows that they read this blog and are aware of the case against them!]]>
Thu, 01 Jul 2021 22:52:19 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20648 https://curi.us/comments/show/20648
Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
Sarah's secret naughty site is also down.]]>
Thu, 01 Jul 2021 21:53:22 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20647 https://curi.us/comments/show/20647
Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
Looks like incompetence.

http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk is still up]]>
Thu, 01 Jul 2021 21:47:54 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20646 https://curi.us/comments/show/20646
Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://www.fitz-claridge.com

All it says now is:

> Error establishing a database connection

Good thing curi made an archive.is link for Sarah's quotes page instead of relying on her website staying up.

OK I checked and Lulie's sites are also down. Maybe it's just their inability to run basic websites? These are down:

https://lulie.org
https://www.lulie.co.uk
http://www.reasonisfun.com

Also down:

https://www.takingchildrenseriously.com

These time out and load nothing, rather than reporting a database error.]]>
Thu, 01 Jul 2021 21:25:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20645 https://curi.us/comments/show/20645
curi Harassment Summary Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:47:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20644 https://curi.us/comments/show/20644 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
The other blgoger I emailed about a misquote still hasn't replied.]]>
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:25:09 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20643 https://curi.us/comments/show/20643
curi The Uncertainty Principle Sat, 26 Jun 2021 23:37:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20642 https://curi.us/comments/show/20642 Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
Reisman says:

> We cannot know if Ayn Rand was addressing a complexity in her position that was too subtle for Prof. Mayhew to follow and that he mistakenly inferred a contradiction of her published position when in fact there was none.

Yeah. This is a serious and plausible risk.

I wish they'd just release the raw stuff instead of trying to clean it up. Let people judge her statements and context for themselves rather than trying to sanitize and "correct" things in a way that produces bad and unscholarly material.

Maybe they are worried that people will take stuff out of context to do smear jobs. But they already do that anyways and will continue to do so.]]>
Sat, 26 Jun 2021 23:26:53 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20641 https://curi.us/comments/show/20641
curi The Uncertainty Principle
I understood the math and the argument myself, and I don't think anyone got the mistaken idea that I'd invented the argument myself as original physics research (I am not a physicist). I think that I did mislead some people into believing that I'd written this particular version of the argument myself. I apologize for that.

I forgot how the argument worked, and then went through it and figured it out again by myself without DD's help, at least once (my best guess, from memory, is that I did that three times). That demonstrates that I wasn't just fooling myself by thinking I understood it right after DD explained it to me. I'm actually able to follow and understand it myself without his help.]]>
Sat, 26 Jun 2021 23:23:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20640 https://curi.us/comments/show/20640
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/ayn-rand-answers-best-of-her-qa-edited.html]]>
Sat, 26 Jun 2021 22:18:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20639 https://curi.us/comments/show/20639
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
Why are people so bad about quoting? I think it’s partly because people have voice-first attitudes to communication, ideas and thinking. They are more comfortable talking than writing. They prefer listening to reading. That’s foreign to me but I’m the weird minority for that issue. The point is, speech is less exact than text and people are bad at dealing with a different format and being more precise. They reuse lots of habits and policies from speech.

People also have bad attitudes to details and precision, are bad at integrity, are lazy, and are bad at doing much of anything with really high reliability. Those contribute to misquotes.

And people care way more about attacking the other tribe than fact checking their own tribe. They think only an enemy would fact check their quotes.

People generally form opinions and reach conclusions first, and then look for facts, data, cites and quotes to back up their claims. People often write books or articles first, then tack on citations later. That’s a very different process than researching an issue first, then figuring out your conclusion based on the information you find. When citations are superficially tacked on because you’re expected to have them, the quality suffers, and sometimes doing cites is outsourced to assistants whose reputation isn’t on the line and who don’t care much. And the main author’s reputation isn’t on the line very effectively either because the world doesn’t care much. We have enough trouble policing intentionally forged data and publishing “scientific” results that can’t be replicated.]]>
Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:41:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20638 https://curi.us/comments/show/20638
curi Harassment Summary Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:22:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20637 https://curi.us/comments/show/20637 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:48:36 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20636 https://curi.us/comments/show/20636 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
I remember when Harry Binswanger cited a Popper quote to *the wrong book* and did not care about his error. He's not just a professional intellectual and author. He is the person who compiled tons of Ayn Rand quotes for the lexicon. Which, come to think of it, I've shared without double checking the original, though generally in ways where the details don't matter (I just want to link someone to an Oist explanation of an issue).

http://aynrandlexicon.com

It does say that the book was begun under Rand's supervision at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002OSXD9G/

I know that the Robert Mayhew material on Rand is really bad scholarship. He biased it on purpose, did sanitizing, etc. E.g. don't trust https://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answers-Best-Her-ebook/dp/B002OSXD78/

I'm not aware of errors in the lexicon though. And I've read some stuff in it recently without setting off my suspicious quote detection. Whereas when I started rereading BoI or saw that old TCS FAQ page about Popper, those *did* set off my suspicious quote detection.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon ought to get some review of its quoting. It's a lot of work though and I have other things to do and I just spent a ton of time researching DD quotes. Maybe later.]]>
Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:44:39 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20635 https://curi.us/comments/show/20635
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/05/31/comments-about-steele-on-lying/#comment-21977

People/society are bad at lots of things, for lots of reasons. Quoting is on the list but unfortunately I think we’ve got plenty of bigger problems.

Anyone who wants to actually help should focus primarily on self-improvement and learning first. (In my experience, most people refuse to do that, which is one of the bigger problems. Things they do instead include posturing as high status or wise, attacking the outgroup, seeking the unearned, trying to socially fit in, hiding information that could be criticized.) They can pursue self-progress at my CF forum and they can go through my existing educational info. I’m reposting my best past stuff at https://criticalfallibilism.com currently and will be sharing new CF info after that. I’m also open to debate at my forum, but I’ve found that serious debate is pretty much unavailable, which is another one of the bigger problems.]]>
Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:34:24 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20634 https://curi.us/comments/show/20634
oh my god it's turpentine David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:30:50 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20633 https://curi.us/comments/show/20633 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
188: .’
88: ’.

DD is not consistent about putting punctuation before or after quotes. FoR is also inconsistent about it.

This makes sentence truncations more confusing/ambiguous.]]>
Fri, 25 Jun 2021 01:12:55 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20632 https://curi.us/comments/show/20632
Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
If he wants to rely on secondary sources, he could at least cite which ones he used. When you don't give a source, what is anyone to do but check the primary source?]]>
Fri, 25 Jun 2021 01:11:40 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20631 https://curi.us/comments/show/20631
Justin Mallone David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
Another quote in BOI appears in the Fair Representation book.

BoI chapter 13:

> In 1901 Representative John E. Littlefield, whose own seat in Maine was under threat from the Alabama paradox, said, ‘God help the State of Maine when mathematics reach for her and undertake to strike her down.’


The original source of is the [Congressional Record](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Congressional_Record/HnOFJyKNLe4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=God+help+the+State+of+Maine+when+mathematics+reach+for+her+and+undertake+to+strike+her+down+in+this+manner%22&pg=PA593&printsec=frontcover)

The quote is:

> God help the State of Maine when mathematics reach for her and undertake to strike her down in this manner in connection with her representation on this floor -- more cruel even than the chairman of this great committee.

I think BoI should have provided some indication that a sentence was being truncated. I thought the quote was of a full sentence.]]>
Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:12:51 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20630 https://curi.us/comments/show/20630
Justin Mallone David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> Representative Roger Q. Mills of Texas complained in 1882, ‘I thought . . . that mathematics was a divine science. I thought that mathematics was the only science that spoke to inspiration and was infallible in its utterances [but] here is a new system of mathematics that demonstrates the truth to be false.’

The full quote, from the [Congressional Record](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Congressional_Record/j_HaUxZvIm8C?hl=en&gbpv=0)

(I wound up typing this out cuz the OCR was trash)

> I thought, Mr. Speaker, that mathematics was a divine science. I thought that mathematics was the only science that spoke by inspiration and was infallible in its utterances. I have been taught always that it demonstrated the truth. I have been told that there was nothing left for speculation in mathematics. I have been told that while in astronomy and philosophy and geometry and all other sciences there was something left for speculation, that mathematics, like the voice of Revelation, said when it spoke, "Thus saith the Lord."

> But here is a new system of mathematics that demonstrates the truth to be false.


The ellipsis seems okay.

DD changed "by inspiration" to "to inspiration".

DD skips a huge chunk of text without ellipsis and misleads the reader. Looking at his "[but]", which is placed in the middle of a sentence, uncapitalized, without an ellipsis on either side, I expected the thing changed to be something along the lines of "and yet, Mr. Speaker" - fluff that DD decided he wanted to shorten to a but. I did not expect there to be a big chunk of text, and then a new paragraph actually starting with a capitalized But.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:46:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20629 https://curi.us/comments/show/20629
Justin Mallone David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> On the face of it, the issue seems no more than a technicality: in the US House of Representatives, how many seats should each state be allotted? This is known as the apportionment problem, because the US Constitution requires seats to be ‘apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers [i.e. their populations]’.

I checked the version of the Constitution available on the [National Archives](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript) website and this quote seemed fine]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:16:32 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20628 https://curi.us/comments/show/20628
Anonymous David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> I know DD is a poor typist which could be a contributing factor. It’s weird that he never learned to type well considering that he’s an author and that he’s also written a lot more by email and IM than in his books. He spends a ton of time on computers and seems irrational about learning to type better. The point is, it’s harder to type in quotes for a book correctly if you aren’t fully comfortable touch-typing, so you have to keep looking between three places: the book, the screen and your keyboard. And typing errors are distracting and take attention away from making sure the words are right.

i watched a kind of mini-documentary thing featuring David Deutsch. link:

https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?t=657

the documentary was from 1995 according to the youtube description. The Fabric of Reality was released in 1997. he seems to be editing/writing FoR in parts of the video.

i noticed he was not touch typing in any of the clips of him typing, an author not touch typing seemed kind of surprising to me, especially one who does science stuff.

at the time marks: 10:58 11:18 it looks like he mostly uses both his middle fingers, and i think he might have even pressed the space bar with his index finger.

you can also notice how he looks down at his keyboard, then up at the monitor, then down at the keyboard, and up at the monitor again.

16:40 to 17:01 is more footage of him typing. he seems to use his thumb for the space bar in this clip, but he still has to look down at his keyboard and then up at his monitor a lot.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:03:20 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20627 https://curi.us/comments/show/20627
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> That Hawking quote doesn’t appear in the following books written or cowritten by Hawking: “The large scale structure of space-time”, “A Brief History of Time”, “The Grand Design”, “The Nature of Space and Time" and “The Universe in a Nutshell”.

Which Hawking quote did you check? The BoI chemical scum quote? Or the FoR chemical scum quote or both?

Also, btw, do you try searching individual words or multiple short phrases? Searching the entire quote often doesn't work due to DD changing punctuation.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:45:24 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20626 https://curi.us/comments/show/20626
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> ...‘time can be thought of as a line (theoretically, of infinite length) on which is located, as a continuously moving point, the present moment. Anything ahead of the present moment is in the future, and anything behind it is in the past.’
>
> FIGURE 11.1 *The common-sense concept of time that is assumed in the English language (based on Quirk* et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, *p.* 175).

I found the quote in the book except that it ends with a colon not a period. I don’t think that edit to the quote is OK without square brackets.

FoR:

> In *A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language*, Randolph Quirk and his co-authors explain the common-sense concept of time with the aid of the diagram shown in Figure 11.1. Each point on the line represents a particular, fixed moment. The triangle [triangle picture] indicates where the ‘continuously moving point, the present moment’, is located on the line.

I found the text “continuously moving point, the present moment” in the book as quoted.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:21:22 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20625 https://curi.us/comments/show/20625
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> Mystery is part of the very concept of time that we grow up with. St Augustine, for example, said:
> > What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain it to one who asks, I know not. (Confessions)

Here’s the text in *Confessions*:

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3296/pg3296.txt

> What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not: yet I say boldly that I know, that if nothing passed away, time past were not; and if nothing were coming, a time to come were not; and if nothing were, time present were not.

So DD changed “know:” to “know;”, changed “that asketh” to “who asks”, and changed “not:” to “not.” Or maybe he accurately quoted a different translation and didn’t say which one he used, which is problematic. My quote is “Translated by E. B. Pusey (Edward Bouverie)”. But there are other English translations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_(Augustine)#English_translations]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:01:32 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20624 https://curi.us/comments/show/20624
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> As Hawking has said:
> > I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I’m an optimist. We will reach out to the stars.
> Daily Telegraph, 16 October 2001

This quote is accurate, see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1359562/Colonies-in-space-may-be-only-hope-says-Hawking.html]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:51:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20623 https://curi.us/comments/show/20623
oh my god it's turpentine David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:51:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20622 https://curi.us/comments/show/20622 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> So it seems that, as Stephen Hawking put it, ‘The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies.’

and from BoI:

> As the physicist Stephen Hawking put it, humans are ‘just a chemical scum on the surface of a typical planet that’s in orbit round a typical star on the outskirts of a typical galaxy’.

Why is DD using two different quotes for this? DD Hawking say it twice with different words? Does DD actually have two sources?

Both books give no source and don't have Hawking in the bibliography.

Wikiquote has:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

>> The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.
> Interview with Ken Campbell on Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken (1995)

That matches the FoR quote except that it has “around” while FoR has “round”.

I don’t have a copy of that TV show but I did find the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ja5YMZlRQU

And when I do web searches, I find some other people talking about Hawking saying that.

So I’m guessing the FoR quote is probably either accurate or close to accurate (one word different, and it might be ambiguous which word he said since it was said in voice).

The BoI quote on the other hand is highly suspicious. When I try to web search it, I mostly find results related to DD, including DD saying something very similar in a 2005 TED talk:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_chemical_scum_that_dream_of_distant_quasars/transcript

> As Stephen Hawking famously said, we're just a chemical scum on the surface of a typical planet that's in orbit around a typical star, which is on the outskirts of a typical galaxy, and so on.

If it’s a famous quote, then it shouldn’t be hard to find stuff about it that isn’t related to DD.

I’m guessing that DD screwed up the quote quite badly for his TED talk (it’s hard to tell if it’s just poor memory, cuz first of all it’s irresponsible not to use notes or memory aids, and second of all he made it sound clever and nice by repeating “typical” 3 times so it’d be more rival, so he wasn’t just randomly screwing up words due to bad memory). And then DD based the quote in BoI on his own TED talk. And the version in FoR is the real quote, and the BoI and TED versions are misquotes.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:49:35 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20621 https://curi.us/comments/show/20621
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> > Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
> > So do our minutes hasten to their end;
> > Each changing place with that which goes before,
> > In sequent toil all forwards do contend.
> William Shakespeare (Sonnet 60)

This quote is OK.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:27:51 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20620 https://curi.us/comments/show/20620
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> As Dawkins has pointed out:
>
> > A gene pool is carved and whittled through generations of ancestral natural selection to fit [a particular] environment. In theory a knowledgeable zoologist, presented with the complete transcript of a genome [the set of all the genes of an organism], should be able to reconstruct the environmental circumstances that did the carving. In this sense the DNA is a coded description of ancestral environments.
> In Art Wolfe, The Living Wild, ed. Michelle A. Gilders (2000)

Does anyone have access to this book? I don’t. I’d appreciate if someone checked this quote.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:24:55 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20619 https://curi.us/comments/show/20619
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> The Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg was in instrumentalist mood when he made the following extraordinary comment about Einstein's explanation of gravity:
>
> > The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn't matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time. (*Gravitation and Cosmology*, p. 147)

I checked *Gravitation and Cosmology*. This is correct. DD was a better quoter in FoR than BoI. The book I checked was a PDF with no OCR, but I found the quote easily because DD gave page numbers. There are lots of page numbers for quotes given in FoR, unlike in BoI.

FoR:

> Steven Weinberg thinks that ‘The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself.’ (*The First Three Minutes*, p. 154.)

I checked the book. The words are OK here, but DD has combined sentences from two adjacent paragraphs without using an ellipsis. That’s bad.

FoR:

> As Jacob Bronowski put it:
>
> > The result was silence among Catholic scientists everywhere from then on ... The effect of the trial and of the imprisonment was to put a total stop to the scientific tradition in the Mediterranean. (*The Ascent of Man*, p. 218)

There’s a period after “on” in the original and DD skips several paragraphs ahead with that ellipsis. The words are right.

DD sources the quote to a single page, which is suspicious given how much text he skipped. So I found my paper copy of the book. The text actually does fit on p. 218 (it has large pages, and the first sentence is near the top and the second sentence near the bottom).

I did a word count and the ellipsis skipped 287 words. It may have only fit on the one page because there are two block quotes that use a smaller font.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:48:27 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20618 https://curi.us/comments/show/20618
quotes oh my god it's turpentine David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> ‘This is Earth. Not the eternal and only home of mankind, but only a starting point of an infinite adventure. All you need do is make the decision [to end your static society]. It is yours to make.’
[With that decision] came the end, the final end of Eternity. – And the beginning of Infinity.
Isaac Asimov, The End of Eternity (1955)

The book sez:

> Noÿs said, “This is Earth. Not the eternal and only home of mankind, but only a starting point of an infinite adventure. All you need do is make the decision. It is yours to make. You and I and the contents of this cave will be protected by a physiotime field against the Change. Cooper will disappear along with his advertisement; Eternity will go and the Reality of my Century, but we will remain to have children and grandchildren, and mankind will remain to reach the stars.”
>
> He turned to look at her, and she was smiling at him. It was Noÿs as she had been, and his own heart beating as it had used to.
>
> He wasn’t even aware that he had made his decision until the grayness suddenly invaded all the sky as the hulk of the kettle disappeared from against it.
>
> With that disappearance, he knew, even as Noÿs moved slowly into his arms, came the end, the final end of Eternity.
>
> And the beginning of Infinity.

The quote is accurate, but I'm not sure whether the additions in square brackets are in the spirit of the original material. It looks like there is a difference in whether there is a paragraph break between the final two sentences, but that might be a result of different punctuation in different editions or something like that.

In chapter 9 of BoI, DD wrote:

> Stephen Hawking recently advised this, in his television series Into the Universe. He argued, ‘If [extraterrestrials] ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.’

The quote can be checked here:

https://youtu.be/CjiRb1sy0sQ?t=319

> So if aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.

and it is accurate.

In Chapter 8 of BoI, DD wrote:

> As Hawking once put it, ‘Television sets could come out [of a naked singularity].’

I have checked the following books written by Hawking, sometimes with coauthors: “The large scale structure of space-time”, “A Brief History of Time”, “The Grand Design”, “The Nature of Space and Time" and “The Universe in a Nutshell” and they don’t contain this quote or anything like it. Nor have I found the quote in searches except in searches that show this quote from BoI.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:35:15 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20617 https://curi.us/comments/show/20617
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> For example, in ‘Reflections on my Critics’ the philosopher Thomas Kuhn wrote:
>
> > There is [a step] which many philosophers of science wish to take and which I refuse. They wish, that is, to compare [scientific] theories as representations of nature, as statements about ‘what is really out there’.
> Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., *Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge* (1979)

Here’s the original text that Kuhn wrote:

> Nevertheless, there is another step, or kind of step, which many philosophers of science wish to take and which I refuse. They wish, that is, to compare theories as representations of nature, as statements about ‘what is really out there’.

SO it's OK.

DD quoted this in FoR too and gave the page number (265) then. Maybe that’s why he got a quote right in BoI: because he copied it from FoR. Whereas a lot of the new quotes in BoI are wrong.

It’s slightly different in FoR. The first word is lowercase in FoR (which I think is better) and the “[scientific]” insertion isn’t in FoR.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:12:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20616 https://curi.us/comments/show/20616
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:00:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20615 https://curi.us/comments/show/20615 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes > John Archibald Wheeler, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 480 (1986)

This is a major misquote. DD has significantly changed the wording. He left out words with not ellipsis and reordered other words. Here’s what Wheeler actually wrote:

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12434.x

> Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that when–in a decade, a century, or a millennium–we grasp it, we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?

DD deleted “so compelling” and moved “we grasp it” before the dashed part.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:56:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20614 https://curi.us/comments/show/20614
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
I searched the book (both Oxford and Cambridge university press versions). The text “appearance of design” isn’t in *Natural Theology*.

The text “appearance of design” is in BoI several times, sometimes in quote marks and sometimes not. It’s never very clear what, if anything, it’s a quote from. I think many readers of BoI would believe DD is quoting Paley.

> So, how did all that knowledge come to be embodied in those things? As I said, Paley could conceive of only one explanation. That was his first mistake:
>
> > The inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker . . . There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end . . . without the end ever having been contemplated or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use imply the presence of intelligence and mind.

In the Oxford University Press edition of *Natural Theology*, here’s the sentence similar to what DD has at the start of his quote with my bolding:

> This mechanism* being observed (it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood), **the inference, we think, is inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker;** that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.

(I don’t know if the * is an error in my electronic copy of the book or what. It could have e.g. been introduced when converting to a different file format. So I just left it in. That’s part of why I checked another edition of the book to compare. The * is not in the Cambridge version.)

DD capitalized the middle of a sentence again and changed the punctuation. So far DD has the same words in the same order, though.

The Cambridge version I have is an OCRed PDF facsimile with the old style ‘f’ instead of ’s’ in most cases. It has for just the key part:

> the inference, we think, is inevitable ; that the watch muft have had a maker ;

DD seems to think it’s OK for him to just edit punctuation in quotes instead of using what the source books use? It’s not.

Continuing on, in the Oxford version Paley writes:

> There cannot be design without a designer;* contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to an use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind.

Not only did DD change the punctuation, he also changed “any thing” to “anything”. It’s hard to compare the texts with my software “find” feature because I keep getting mismatches due to the many changes.

Also, the start of DD’s quote is from chapter 1 and this part is from chapter 2. DD presents it like it’s from the same paragraph. Ugh.

I checked the Cambridge version too. It’s like the Oxford version, not like DD’s version. It has “any thing” as two words.

DD’s second ellipsis skips less than a sentence, rather than skipping ahead to another chapter. He uses the same marker for really different meanings.

In the last section, DD changed “an use” to “a use” without square brackets to indicate an edit.

DD also screwed up a comma. In BoI’s “relation of instruments to a use imply the presence of intelligence and mind.” it doesn’t make sense to remove the comma before “imply”. DD seems to be trying to edit the punctuation to be better and more modern, but in this case he made the punctuation worse and made the quote harder to read.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:45:54 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20613 https://curi.us/comments/show/20613
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> Horgan wrote that he had originally believed science to be ‘open-ended, even infinite’.

Correct. Found it at http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/random043/97001185.html

But later that paragraph, BoI says:

> He [Horgan] believed that what distinguishes science from unscientific fields such as literary criticism, philosophy or art is that science has the ability to ‘resolve questions’ objectively (by comparing theories with reality), while other fields can produce only multiple, mutually incompatible interpretations of any issue.

Searching the same page I’d just found for “resolve” I see:

> The more frustrated I became with the ironic outlook of literature and literary criticism, the more I began to appreciate the crisp, no-nonsense approach of science. Scientists have the ability to pose questions and resolve them in a way that critics, philosophers, historians cannot. Theories are tested experimentally, compared to reality, and those found wanting are rejected.

So either the text “resolve questions” is somewhere else in the book or this is a misquote. It’s suspicious how well this fits what DD said, and how near it is to the other quote, but without DD’s quote actually being accurate. So I’m getting the full book to check.

---

OK I checked. Horgan wrote the text “resolve questions” one time way later in the book:

> More detailed observations of our cosmos will not necessarily resolve questions about the Hubble constant or other issues.

I don’t think DD is referring to this sentence because then his comments don’t fit the text. Either way, DD is wrong. He’s either misquoting something while giving an accurate description of what Horgan said, or else DD’s two word quote is described incorrectly.

This misquote looks potentially intentional to me. How do you typo a two word quote? How do you copy/paste it from the internet? Did someone else misquote Horgan on a webpage and then DD copied two words from their misquote? Seems doubtful considering I couldn’t find any such misquotes with some quick web searches, such as:

> horgan "resolve questions" "literature and literary criticism"

which got zero results on Google. And:

> horgan "resolve questions" literature literary criticism

which has an unauthorized copy of BoI as the top search result and no sign of any Horgan misquotations.

It looks like maybe DD read the Horgan text and then just changed the wording for his convenience and used quote marks, and thought that was OK because he wasn’t changing the meaning. If he’d written “resolve them [questions]” or “resolve [questions]” it’d be an accurate quote. But “resolve questions” is wrong.

Note that DD does use square brackets for quotes elsewhere in BoI:

> As Dawkins has pointed out:
>
> > A gene pool is carved and whittled through generations of ancestral natural selection to fit [a particular] environment. In theory a knowledgeable zoologist, presented with the complete transcript of a genome [the set of all the genes of an organism], should be able to reconstruct the environmental circumstances that did the carving. In this sense the DNA is a coded description of ancestral environments.
> In Art Wolfe, The Living Wild, ed. Michelle A. Gilders (2000)

And

> Hence, as many critics have since noticed, if we substitute ‘ultimate designer’ for ‘watch’ in Paley’s text above, we force Paley to ‘the [inevitable] inference . . . that the ultimate designer must have had a maker’.

And

> As Hawking once put it, ‘Television sets could come out [of a naked singularity].’

And

> Stephen Hawking recently advised this, in his television series Into the Universe. He argued, ‘If [extraterrestrials] ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.’

And

> For example, in ‘Reflections on my Critics’ the philosopher Thomas Kuhn wrote:
>
> > There is [a step] which many philosophers of science wish to take and which I refuse. They wish, that is, to compare [scientific] theories as representations of nature, as statements about ‘what is really out there’.
> Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1979)

And

> Representative Roger Q. Mills of Texas complained in 1882, ‘I thought . . . that mathematics was a divine science. I thought that mathematics was the only science that spoke to inspiration and was infallible in its utterances [but] here is a new system of mathematics that demonstrates the truth to be false.’ In 1901 Representative John E. Littlefield, whose own seat in Maine was under threat from the Alabama paradox, said, ‘God help the State of Maine when mathematics reach for her and undertake to strike her down.’

And

>> ‘This is Earth. Not the eternal and only home of mankind, but only a starting point of an infinite adventure. All you need do is make the decision [to end your static society]. It is yours to make.’
> > [With that decision] came the end, the final end of Eternity. – And the beginning of Infinity.
> Isaac Asimov, The End of Eternity (1955)

And

> The ideal that explanatory science strives for is nicely described by the quotation from Wheeler with which I began this chapter: ‘Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it – in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? [my italics].’

Which shows DD cares about italicization of quotes as a general BoI policy, so the Myth of the Framework quote was wrong to omit Popper’s italics with no note.

Considering DD knows how to use square brackets, I don’t see how he could think it was OK to edit the Horgan quote without using square brackets. But I don’t have any good guess about how that would happen by accident. I know based on how many misquotes are in BoI that DD was careless in general, but I still don’t really know what happened here. It seems like he was just inconsistent. He edited quotes repeatedly, and sometimes put square brackets for the edits, and sometimes didn’t bother. So I suspect editing the quote was intentional. Forgetting to put square brackets could have beens some sort of incompetent accident though.

It’s ridiculous that you can find quoting errors just by searching two word phrases like this. They quotation errors aren’t confined to more substantial quotes. I think a lot of people wouldn’t even check a two word quote like that.

Now I’ve got a lot of other quotes to look through, plus I found a couple more quotes in FoR by searching for square brackets. Actually, I’m now asking Alan and Justin to check some quotes.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:58:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20612 https://curi.us/comments/show/20612
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:37:13 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20611 https://curi.us/comments/show/20611 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/05/31/comments-about-steele-on-lying/#comment-21973

> Check out the Michelson quote on page 198. Looks like the last sentence in the quote is itself a quote by Michelson but Deutsch omits the quote marks, making it appear as though that sentence is Michelson’s own words. Whose words Michelson is quoting is unclear (Rayleigh’s?).

So I checked what BoI says:

>> The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . . . Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.
> Albert Michelson, address at the opening of the Ryerson Physical Laboratory, University of Chicago, 1894

Then I checked the source, *Light Waves and Their Uses*, which says:

> The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Nevertheless, it has been found that there are apparent exceptions to most of these laws, and this is particularly true when the observations are pushed to a limit, i. e., whenever the circumstances of experiment are such that extreme cases can be examined. Such examination almost surely leads, not to the overthrow of the law, but to the discovery of other facts and laws whose action produces the apparent exceptions.
>
> As instances of such discoveries, which are in most cases due to the increasing order of accuracy made possible by improvements in measuring instruments, may be mentioned : first, the departure of actual gases from the simple laws of the so-called perfect gas, one of the practical results being the liquefaction of air and all known gases; second, the discovery of the velocity of light by astronomical means, depending on the accuracy of telescopes and of astronomical clocks ; third, the determination of distances of stars and the orbits of double stars, which depend on measurements of the order of accuracy of one-tenth of a second an angle which may be represented as that which a pin's head subtends at a distance of a mile. But perhaps the most striking of such instances are the discovery of a new planet by observations of the small irregularities noticed by Leverier in the motions of the planet Uranus, and the more recent brilliant discovery by Lord Rayleigh of a new element in the atmosphere through the minute but unexplained anomalies found in weighing a given volume of nitrogen. Many other instances might be cited, but these will suffice to justify the statement that "our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." It follows that every means which facilitates accuracy in measurement is a possible factor in a future discovery, and this will, I trust, be a sufficient excuse for bringing to your notice the various methods and results which form the subject-matter of these lectures.

(This is from an electronic copy of the book and could have errors. E.g. I don’t know if the spaces before the colon and semi-colon are actually in the original or not.)

I don’t like that DD combined two paragraphs into one with an ellipsis. DD also used an ellipsis poorly when he wrote “from within the structure itself …” in the worst Popper misquote. When you put an ellipsis after a period, you should end up with four dots, not three, and you shouldn’t replace the period in the original with a space. DD did the same error again here. The original text has a period after “remote”. DD makes it look like he’s omitting words mid sentence when he isn’t.

The word “sixth” only appears one other time in the book which isn’t related, so the nested quote:

> the statement that "our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."

isn’t directly referring to something said earlier in the book.

Reading those two paragraphs over, I think Michelson was just talking about a hypothetical statement that someone could say and that he believed.

DD should quote it with a real source, not a speech but no particular book or other record of that speech, especially considering that DD’s quote doesn’t match the easiest to find book primary source. If DD’s source is *Light Waves and Their Uses* then he misquoted by omitting the nested quote marks. If it’s something else, it’s hard to find. You can find it without quote marks on webpages pretty easily but that’s not an acceptable source.

DD also capitalized “Our” like it’s the start of a sentence, but it isn’t and it’s lowercased in the book. So that’s wrong. It’s similar to DD’s:

> As Popper put it, ‘We can let our theories die in our place.’

which I don’t think is OK because “We” is not the start of a sentence in Popper’s book and is lowercased there. It’s a standard practice (that I don’t think should be used in a book like BoI) to change capitalization without brackets *for the purpose of matching your sentence*. E.g. if you start your own sentence with a quote, you’re allowed to capitalize the first word in the quote. But here DD doesn’t require a capital letter at that spot in his sentence, so he shouldn’t be changing it without brackets to indicate the change.

It’s misleading this way because people will read it as a complete sentence when it’s not.

The Michelson quote in BoI is similarly misleading. People will read BoI’s text as saying that “Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.” is a complete sentence present in the original, but it’s not.

And this DD misquote appears to be spreading, just like the Feynman misquote. You can see it at:

https://nintil.com/is-useful-physics-over/

I’m pretty confident that blog post is getting the Michelson quote from BoI because the words match, the speech source wording is the same (the punctuation is not), the Feynman quote right above it is also from BoI, the publication date is 2018, and the blog post mentions Deutsch and that the author has blog read BoI. Also the blog post version says “dis - coveries” like he copy/pasted it from a PDF and then didn’t read what he pasted and fix it. I emailed the blog author about the error.

So what did I do next? Check the Feynman quote of course. It’s a misquote too.

BoI:

>> I think there will certainly not be novelty, say for a thousand years. This thing cannot keep going on so that we are always going to discover more and more new laws. If we do, it will become boring that there are so many levels one underneath the other . . . We are very lucky to live in an age in which we are still making discoveries. It is like the discovery of America – you only discover it once.
> The Character of Physical Law (1965)

But *The Character of Physical Law* says:

> What of the future of this adventure? What will happen ultimately? We are going along guessing the laws; how many laws are we going to have to guess? I do not know. Some of my colleagues say that this fundamental aspect of our science will go on; but I think there will certainly not be perpetual novelty, say for a thousand years. This thing cannot keep on going so that we are always going to discover more and more new laws. If we do, it will become boring that there are so many levels one underneath the other. It seems to me that what can happen in the future is either that all the laws become known – that is, if you had enough laws you could compute consequences and they would always agree with experiment, which would be the end of the line – or it may happen that the experiments get harder and harder to make, more and more expensive, so you get 99.9 per cent of the phenomena, but there is always some phenomenon which has just been discovered, which is very hard to measure, and which disagrees; and as soon as you have the explanation of that one there is always another one, and it gets slower and slower and more and more uninteresting. That is another way it may end. But I think it has to end in one way or another.
>
> We are very lucky to live in an age in which we are still making discoveries. It is like the discovery of America – you only discover it once. The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again. It is very exciting, it is marvellous, but this excitement will have to go. Of course in the future there will be other interests. There will be the interest of the connection of one level of phenomena to another – phenomena in biology and so on, or, if you are talking about exploration, exploring other planets, but there will not still be the same things that we are doing now.


To begin with, *DD has changed “perpetual novelty” to “novelty”* so it’s just a straight misquote.

The original says “keep on going” but DD quotes it as “keep going on” so that’s another unambiguous misquote. He just plain *changed the wording*.

DD also misused an ellipsis again after a complete sentence. And the “We are very lucky” part is from a separate paragraph, so it’s problematic that DD presented it as being later in the same paragraph.

The blog post with both quotes has the same misquote of Feynman. So he copied the misquote out of BoI without saying where he got it.

What sort of writing process creates errors like these? I know DD is a poor typist which could be a contributing factor. It’s weird that he never learned to type well considering that he’s an author and that he’s also written a lot more by email and IM than in his books. He spends a ton of time on computers and seems irrational about learning to type better. The point is, it’s harder to type in quotes for a book correctly if you aren’t fully comfortable touch-typing, so you have to keep looking between three places: the book, the screen and your keyboard. And typing errors are distracting and take attention away from making sure the words are right. But regardless of how much trouble typing you have, the misquotes are fully inexcusable. DD should have reviewed each quote, word by word, after typing it in. Also, he told me that he sometimes types quotes in from paper books.

Alternatively, he could have gotten most or all of the quotes from electronic books and copy/pasted. That’d prevent typing issues and also make up for his apparent inability to read word-by-word to see if sentences are identical or not. However, you have to be careful to only use legitimate sources, not random webpages. And you have to check for errors in the conversion from paper book to electronic version. I suspect some of his misquotes are due to grabbing quotes off webpages without worrying about primary sources, particularly the misquote about Feynman and fooling yourself.

I’m going to have to unendorse DD’s books or at least add a lot of caveats (I do still think they have value), and apologize for my error of not previously realizing how bad DD’s scholarship is.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:19:30 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20610 https://curi.us/comments/show/20610
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> Before Blackmore and others realized the significance of memes in human evolution, all sorts of root causes had been suggested [...] And, as I have mentioned, sexual selection is always a candidate for explaining rapid evolution. Then there is the ‘Machiavellian hypothesis’ that human intelligence evolved in order to predict the behaviour of others, and to fool them. There is also the hypothesis that human intelligence is an enhanced version of the apes’ aping adaptation – which, as I have argued, could not be true. Nevertheless, Blackmore’s ‘meme machine’ idea, that human brains evolved in order to replicate memes, must be true.

At first I read ‘Machiavellian hypothesis’ as a quote of Blackmore. If so, it's a misquote. But on review, it's unclear what it's supposed to be a quote from. Here's what Blackmore writes about it in *The Meme Machine*:

> An influential version of social theory is the ‘Machiavellian Intelligence’ hypothesis (Byrne and Whiten 1988; Whiten and Byrne 1997).

and she uses the term "Machiavellian Intelligence" 10 times, including:

> Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A. (eds.) (1988). Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Humans. Oxford University Press.

> Whiten, A. and Byrne, R. W. (1997). Machiavellian Intelligence: II. Extensions and Evaluations. Cambridge University Press.

and in the index:

> Machiavellian Intelligence 74, 75–6, 95–6, 104, 229

And the wikipedia page is called "Machiavellian intelligence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian_intelligence

When I search the web for "Machiavellian hypothesis" I find the wikipedia page for "Machiavellian intelligence" and a paper titled "The dynamics of Machiavellian intelligence" before finding a blog post that uses the term "Machiavellian hypothesis" but which is a poem that I think is talking about something else. It looks like "Machiavellian hypothesis" has been used before but not much.

It looks like DD misnamed the theory he was referring to and put his error in quote marks. I don't think he had any particular quote in mind. He was probably misremembering what Blackmore wrote and using quote marks without checking that he had the words right.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:36:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20609 https://curi.us/comments/show/20609
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
It's hard to find quotes in FoR to check. I tried searching for a start single quote character but found tons of things that aren't quotes of external books and, in a few minutes, no quotes to check. I did find an example of text in quotes that I don't think should be in quotes.

> It [a predictive oracle] tells us the result of any possible experiment if we ask it in the right language (i.e. if we do the experiment), though in some cases it is impractical for us to ‘enter a description of the experiment’ in the  required form (i.e. to build and operate the apparatus). But it provides no explanations.

I don't think "enter a description of the experiment" should be in quotes.

I think FoR doesn't use many quotes.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:23:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20608 https://curi.us/comments/show/20608
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
>> I think that I have solved a major philosophical problem: the problem of induction.
> Karl Popper

Correct, though DD starts his quote mid sentence. It's from OK p. 1. OK is in the FoR bibliography.

> When Popper speaks of ‘rival theories’ to a given theory, he does not mean the set of all logically possible rivals: he means only the actual rivals, those proposed in the course of a rational controversy.

Correct. It's in C&R once which is in FoR's bibliography. Popper wrote:

> The situation could also be described as follows. Our task is the testing, the critical examination, of two (or more) rival theories. We solve it by trying to refute them—either the one or the other—until we come to a decision. In mathematics (but only in mathematics) such decisions are generally final: invalid proofs that escape detection are rare.

I checked my paper copy of C&R ch. 8 and it does have a period after "follows", not a colon, which seems wrong. (I thought it might be an OCR error.)

Since "rival theories" appears in OK zero times, C&R once, and MotF once, I suspect DD might have been guessing it was a quote from memory instead of having in mind specific text that he was quoting. I suspect DD thought Popper said it lots of times so he was referring to that instead of to specific text, but if DD thought that he was wrong (considering only the Popper books in the FoR bibliography, which I think is appropriate).

OK, after writing that I checked some other Popper books too. "rival theories" is in RASc once, LScD zero times, WoP zero times, and OSE zero times.

>> Although history has no meaning, we can give it a meaning.
> Karl Popper (The Open Society
 and Its Enemies, Vol. 2, p. 278)

What Popper wrote was:

> Although history has no ends, we can impose these ends of ours upon it; and although history has no meaning, we can give it a meaning.

DD started mid sentence and changed the capitalization without brackets, which I consider problematic. (I think he would have done that to the first quote above too, but in that case he started his quote on "I" which was capitalized in the original.)

> More seriously, very few philosophers agree with Popper's claim that there is no longer a ‘problem of induction’ because we do not in fact obtain or justify theories from observations, but proceed by explanatory conjectures and refutations instead.

“problem of induction” is in C&R 18 times.

> Popper even said that ‘no theory of knowledge should attempt to explain why we are successful in our attempts to explain things’ (*Objective Knowledge* p. 23).

Popper wrote:

> More precisely, *no theory of knowledge should attempt to explain why we are successful in our attempts to explain things*.

So that’s OK except that DD omitted Popper’s italics.

---

OK so not too bad on the Popper quotes but I noticed that DD didn’t quote Popper very much. (Above I went through most, possibly all, of the Popper quotes in FoR.)

In chapter 3 of FoR, DD presents 3 diagrams (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) about how learning works. The diagrams are clearly specifically based on Popper’s diagrams in *Objective Knowledge* (first on page 119, and used in the book repeatedly as an ongoing, memorable theme, which is in the index too). Popper calls it a “schema” and DD uses the word “scheme” five times in chapter 3.

DD took Popper’s diagram and modified it a bit while keeping the same main idea.

DD did not give Popper credit for this. This looks to me like **plagiarism**.

Chapter 3 is the most Popperian chapter in the book, yet Popper’s name appears in chapter 3 only two times. They are:

> Fortunately, the prevailing theory of scientific knowledge, which in its modern form is due largely to the philosopher Karl Popper (and which is one of my four ‘main strands’ of explanation of the fabric of reality), can indeed be regarded as a theory of explanations in this sense. It regards science as a *problem-solving* process.

and

> For this reason, Popper has called his theory that knowledge can grow only by conjecture and refutation, in the manner of Figure 3.3, an *evolutionary epistemology.*

These two quotes do not give the reader even a hint that DD’s diagrams are copied and modified out of Popper’s book. And they also seem more generally inadequate for letting the reader know how much of the information in chapter 3 is from Popper.

I knew for many years that DD’s diagrams in FoR ch. 3 were based on Popper’s in OK. I had strongly connected the two things in my head. But I didn’t realize until now that DD hadn’t given Popper credit.

This helps show a pattern with #14 where DD takes undeserved credit for Popperian ideas to fans he never tells (with specifics) how much he got from Popper.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:14:50 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20607 https://curi.us/comments/show/20607
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
For the general public, DD presents himself as humble. But in a serious paper he tries to take a lot of credit for himself:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521981530023X

> An important consequence of this explanatory conception of science is that experimental results consistent with a theory *T* do not constitute support for *T*. That is because they are merely explicanda. A new explicandum may make a theory more problematic, but it can never solve existing problems involving a theory (except by making rival theories problematic – see Section 3). The asymmetry between refutation (tentative) and support (non-existent) in scientific methodology is better understood in this way, by regarding theories as explanations, than through Popper's (*op. cit.*) own argument from the logic of predictions, appealing to what has been called the ‘arrow of modus ponens’. Scientific theories are only approximately modelled as *propositions*, but they are precisely *explanations*.

Popper knew about explanations and wrote a lot about them. DD isn't actually providing a new and distinct approach.

The Popper argument he refers to is one Popper made, and the stuff DD is saying is significantly different than it. But that's a very unfair comparison because *that wasn't Poppper's only argument.* Popper *also* made other arguments more similar to DD's decades before DD. DD's aggrandizing himself by comparing his take on epistemology to one specific, unfair Popper argument to make it seem like he's much more original than he actually is.

In addition to the other arguments Popper made, he also knew about the asymmetry that refutation is tentative while support is non-existent. DD isn't adding something by saying that, but DD makes it sound like that's his own idea.

You can search C&R for words like "tentative", "explanation", "support", etc. I'll give one example:

> For a scientific theory—an explanatory theory—is, if anything, an attempt to solve a scientific problem, that is to say, a problem concerned or connected with the discovery of an explanation.[6]

So, contrary to DD's 2015 paper, Popper did regard theories as explanations. And DD presents Popper incorrectly for the specific purpose of crediting himself with more originality than he had. This subtly and substantively tricks people, and it's made worse by how humble he pretends to be, so people will look for this kind of thing less. Here's a source on his dishonest humility: https://twitter.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/760266821643726848 I think, for various reasons, that he does this on purpose. Lots of his fans think he's better than Popper, and SFC/TCS encouraged people to think that, but he doesn't want to say it himself for social climbing reasons.]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:13:20 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20606 https://curi.us/comments/show/20606
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/05/31/comments-about-steele-on-lying/#comment-21971]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:12:19 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20605 https://curi.us/comments/show/20605
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
Looking up what copy editors do:

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-copy-editor-2316051

> Verify factual correctness of information, such as dates and statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing

> Copy editing (also known as copyediting and manuscript editing) is the process of revising written material to improve readability and fitness, as well as ensuring that text is free of grammatical and factual errors.

That sounds like maybe the copy editor should verify that quotes are factually accurate. But I don't know if it's really his job or not. I don't know if people think of saying "Book X said Y", when it didn't, as the sort of factual error that a copy editor should check. Or if the copy editor is just supposed to find errors for facts like saying the earth is a certain number of miles from the sun and giving the wrong number.

If it's not his job, shouldn't the publisher have hired someone to check the quotes? Do popular science books just not get any kind of professional fact checking? I know lots of them have errors but I had thought that was incompetence rather than just not even trying.

BTW, if you look at https://www.thebeginningofinfinity.com/book/errata/#errata you will see that BoI's copy editor missed some errors that were within his job description to catch.

Also FYI DD kept an unusually large amount of control over the book. In my understanding, DD was sent every edit that the copy editor wanted to make, and reviewed them and decided what changes to approve or not, or how to word corrections. I think DD basically insisted on having full control over the exact wording of everything in his book. (DD showed me some of his communications with his copy editor.)]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:07:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20604 https://curi.us/comments/show/20604
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Wed, 23 Jun 2021 23:48:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20603 https://curi.us/comments/show/20603 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://www.fitz-claridge.com/quotations/ (it's there right now, but here's a mirror in case she stealth edits it: https://archive.is/rIcM3 )

> “The condition of a … slave in the West-Indies, is in many respects preferable to that of the youthful son of a free-born European. The slave is purchased upon a view of mercantile speculation; and, when he has finished his daily portion of labour, his master concerns himself no further about him. But the watchful care of the parent is endless. The youth is never free from the danger of grating interference.”
>
> William Godwin, 1797, 1823, The Enquirer, Part I: Essay VIII: Of the happiness of youth, p. 60

This quote is awful. Godwin clearly didn't understand how bad slavery was (which was bad even in 1797, but more understandable then than it is for SFC today).

The ellipsis is not replacing any full words. SFC turned "negro-slave" into "... slave" which is not a standard use of ellipses. It's also an attempt to sanitize the quote by hiding that Godwin was talking about "negro[es]".

And the book says "of its grating" not "of grating". It seems like SFC types quotes in carelessly. Someone like that really shouldn't have a webpage of (alleged) quotations... And note that SFC misquotes while giving sources (many of the quotes on that page are sourced to specific page numbers).

It's weird how much of her old writing SFC is hiding but she leaves this up which is one of her more cancellable errors. Why would she post something about slavery being preferable!? And then leave *that* up while hiding most of what she said in the past?]]>
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 23:42:10 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20602 https://curi.us/comments/show/20602
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Wed, 23 Jun 2021 23:29:01 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20601 https://curi.us/comments/show/20601 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Wed, 23 Jun 2021 23:09:35 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20600 https://curi.us/comments/show/20600 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://www.edge.org/conversation/chiara-marletto-on-extinction

> As Karl Popper put it, we can "let our ideas die in our place."]]>
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:30:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20599 https://curi.us/comments/show/20599
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:25:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20598 https://curi.us/comments/show/20598 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:22:41 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20597 https://curi.us/comments/show/20597 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
> On a related note, in 2011 DD got upset with me for questioning a Godwin quote he sent me in a private email which I couldn't find when searching the book. It turned out that he was quoting the first edition and I was searching the third edition. He hadn't given a source. I was right to question it and DD should have praised my scholarship instead of getting upset about being questioned. I guess it makes sense that the kind of person who gets upset about being challenged about quoting would also be the kind of person to make quoting errors. Negative emotional reactions to critical questioning is really bad for error correction.

The Godwin quote issue DD got upset about is the same one in

https://curi.us/2439-david-deutschs-irrationality

where I quote DD writing:

> And now, in addition to the above-mentioned patterns of argument, your tactics have escalated to include accusing me of fabricating quotes,]]>
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:17:37 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20596 https://curi.us/comments/show/20596
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:04:05 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20595 https://curi.us/comments/show/20595 curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/05/31/comments-about-steele-on-lying/

my comment went in a moderation queue so that's a link to the page, not the specific comment. it should show up there later.

---

ugh, so, BoI says:

> As Popper put it, ‘We can let our theories die in our place.’

That is not the start of a sentence in the original (In Search of a Better World), so that's problematic. And DD doesn't source it. And he writes the same quote differently elsewhere:

https://nautil.us/issue/7/waste/not-merely-the-finest-tv-documentary-series-ever-made

> As Karl Popper put it, we humans can “let our ideas die in our place.”

Popper didn't put it that way. The change is "ideas" instead of "theories". What is going on? Does DD try to quote this from memory? BTW, I criticized DD's memory at https://curi.us/2425-david-deutschs-denial

Popper wrote something similar in MotF, but DD's text doesn't match it. He also said something similar in a speech: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html

And in an old unpublished article that the BoI evolution of culture material was based on, DD wrote:

> As Popper puts it, we “let our ideas die in our place”.

so that's wrong too. But in turned into "theories" in BoI and at https://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/why-its-good-to-be-wrong but what is going on that DD misquoted in that old article that he tried to publish and in the first Nautilus article I linked above but not the second one.

And BoI doesn't source its quote and only has an accurate (other than it not being the start of a sentence) source (In Search of a Better World) in the bibliography by luck. I know this because I told DD to consider that book for the bibliography after he showed me an earlier draft without it. He only added it to the bibliography because he liked the material covered in the book more than some alternative Popper books, not because he needed it as a quote source.]]>
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 21:29:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20594 https://curi.us/comments/show/20594
curi David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge Publish Misquotes
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2021/05/31/comments-about-steele-on-lying/#comment-21968

---

Dec, I wasn't aware that the same misquote was in BoI. I will update my post and also probably write another post about it or talk about it in a video. (BTW/FYI it's not quite identical in BoI, and my first text search didn't find it, but it's similar and also very badly wrong). Despite your flaming me, I appreciate the information. That is the kind of thing I want to know about. If you have more similar information, you can email it to me or share it at my CF forum (I didn't receive a notification about your comments, but fortunately someone told me).

I'm not a co-author or co-founder of BoI, was never tasked with checking quotes for DD. I believed that DD was a good scholar and was not as suspicious back then (plus DD didn't give the pages 7-9 clue that I picked up on).

I don't think MotF has multiple editions (I haven't checked thoroughly), and the pages SFC gave matched my paper copy that I checked, as well as the PDF copy I checked, and the same words were in the book, so I was confident SFC misquoted without further research.

I didn't remember this quote because I haven't reread BoI recently, except for part of chapter 1, which I found a misquote in. Specifically:

> As the physicist Richard Feynman said, ‘Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.’

That is a fake quote that is being spread on the internet, and has now been cited in some books that attribute it to as quoted in BoI. It's similar to stuff Feynman actually said and I think I know where it comes from (someone paraphrased without quote marks or source, but made it sound like he was giving a quote). I also found a book that gives the quote and then has a footnote saying the author couldn't find a source ... but he put it in his book anyway (wtf!?). I will be sharing info about this but wanted to briefly mentioning now due to relevance.]]>
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:51:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20593 https://curi.us/comments/show/20593
Justin Mallone By Any Means Necessary: A Violent Marxist Cult
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judge-orders-antifa-activist-yvette-felarca-to-pay-judicial-watch-legal-fees-for-her-entirely-frivolous-lawsuit/]]>
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 02:07:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20592 https://curi.us/comments/show/20592
curi Human Problems and Abstract Problems
https://jonathanstark.com/daily/20210621-0420-people-are-the-problem

His example is that the weather is way too hot on Venus but there aren't any people there to mind.]]>
Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:13:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20591 https://curi.us/comments/show/20591
DD's book "recommendations" oh my god it's turpentine Second-Handers and Criminals
https://twitter.com/richardreeze/status/1405249778623991808

He doesn't seem to grasp the distinction between mentioning a book and recommending it. The list includes several books that DD criticised such as Blackmore's meme book and Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".]]>
Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:08:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20590 https://curi.us/comments/show/20590
curi Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
https://curi.us/2124-critical-rationalism-epistemology-explanations

https://curi.us/1579-objectivist-and-popperian-epistemology

https://curi.us/1582-induction-is-wrong-a-lot

https://www.curi.us/1450-new-induction-disproof

https://curi.us/1580-false-dichotomies-package-deals-and-karl-popper]]>
Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:26:51 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20589 https://curi.us/comments/show/20589
Anonymous Harassment Summary
https://twitter.com/CFallibilism

Elliot has been using the term for a while, and the account was created in June 2021 after https://criticalfallibilism.com was launched.]]>
Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:21:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20588 https://curi.us/comments/show/20588
curi Thinking as a Science by Henry Hazlitt Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:11:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20587 https://curi.us/comments/show/20587 curi Max Microblogging
> This is a bit of a guess at a general method for doing FI.

You need to organize your life and form some good habits (or otherwise set up things you happily, easily do regularly). They should include practice, reading and writing (e.g. freewriting, notes, forum posts, outlines, summaries, attempts to clearly explain something).]]>
Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:47:41 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20586 https://curi.us/comments/show/20586
curi Max Microblogging Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:42:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20585 https://curi.us/comments/show/20585 curi David Deutsch’s Irrationality Wed, 09 Jun 2021 17:12:36 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20584 https://curi.us/comments/show/20584 Anonymous David Deutsch Lied About Me
> The Biden administration is earnestly trying to legitimise the war against the Jews while not participating in it. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/blinken-says-u-s-will-aid-gaza-without-helping-hamas When it turns out that those aims cannot both be met in practice, the logic of their position is that they will blindly drop the second one.

DD has been trying to legitimize the war against ET/FI while not participating in it. When he found that too hard, dropped the second one (he openly participated by defaming ET, as explained in the blog post above).

He participated previously by gossiping, lying in private and encouraging proxies to do things, but was trying to maintain deniability. But he gave up on that when he decided to personally break a law to do a direct attack.]]>
Mon, 07 Jun 2021 18:18:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20583 https://curi.us/comments/show/20583
curi Harassment Summary
> I hope people who read this will ask DD to answer for this, and will bring up the issue to him and to his community. Please don't harass them, but do raise the issue, ask challenging questions, and share critical opinions.]]>
Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:53:46 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20582 https://curi.us/comments/show/20582
curi Harassment Summary
> The harassment problem has not ended. Nothing has been fixed so far. DD and others have not made any attempts to improve the situation. Comments on this website remain disabled due to the harassment problem. *It's an active issue that is affecting my life on a daily basis.*

at the bottom of the post]]>
Sun, 30 May 2021 23:04:01 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20581 https://curi.us/comments/show/20581
curi Time-Based Metric For Overreaching
one thing. one node in the project tree. one part when you break the project into parts.]]>
Fri, 28 May 2021 18:19:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20580 https://curi.us/comments/show/20580
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
The first [HN comment](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286212) on the article says:

> The title doesn't specify the perpetrator is white and doesn't mention white supremacy. It can only mean one thing, the elephant in the room, black-on-asian violence. If someone saw the video, can you please confirm my hunch?

His hunch was confirmed.]]>
Wed, 26 May 2021 15:38:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20579 https://curi.us/comments/show/20579
curi David Deutsch's Responsibility for Harassment
I knew that one of the purposes of communicating like that is that people on all sides of an issue can think you agree with them.

I didn't know that was in *The Fountainhead*. So many things are in Rand (my emphasis):

> Grocers and deck hands had not appreciated Gail Wynand; politicians did. In his years on the paper he had learned how to get along with people. His face had assumed the expression it was to wear for the rest of his life: not quite a smile, but a motionless look of *irony* directed at the whole world. *People could presume that his mockery was intended for the particular things they wished to mock.* Besides, it was pleasant to deal with a man untroubled by passion or sanctity.]]>
Mon, 24 May 2021 20:46:22 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20578 https://curi.us/comments/show/20578
Anonymous Dennis Hackethal, Plagiarist
is a similar post concept to

https://curi.us/2238-potential-debate-topics]]>
Sun, 23 May 2021 19:10:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20577 https://curi.us/comments/show/20577
curi The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness Sat, 22 May 2021 20:29:18 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20576 https://curi.us/comments/show/20576 curi Dennis Hackethal, Plagiarist
This post attacks teachers who claim to understand and value TCS. That is a theme I've written about before. Also, what teachers do that? The only one that comes to mind is Brett Hall. Brett's teaching has been critically discussed on list before (Brett quit FI because he wanted sanction and approval from TCSers for his teaching).

Is Dennis attacking Brett Hall without naming him – using a point I've written about – because he's jealous that Brett is currently getting a bunch of undeserved clout and social status and Dennis isn't?

Also a minor thing: people like Dennis and Rami copy me so much, e.g. by writing comments on their own blog posts (including old ones), which I do a ton but which is not typical.

Dennis also tried to create forum software based in substantial part on my ideas about how to do a discussion forum.]]>
Sat, 22 May 2021 20:26:57 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20575 https://curi.us/comments/show/20575
curi Dennis Hackethal, Plagiarist
The circumstances under which I sent him the draft of the blog post are that I contact people privately about problems before complaining publicly. Dennis replied to my initial complaint and said he'd fix stuff but wanted it sent all at once instead of one issue at a time. But then his response to my draft post was to say it was too long so he wouldn't even read it. Ridiculous.]]>
Sat, 22 May 2021 20:22:18 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20574 https://curi.us/comments/show/20574
curi Dennis Hackethal, Plagiarist
https://curi.us/2247-the-cambridge-declaration-on-consciousness

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/analyzing-the-cambridge-declaration-on-consciou

He also wrote criticism of Ayn Rand which probably-not-coincidentally is one of the main topics I've criticized her about. He uses some arguments I've made at https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectivism-vs-the-myth-of-the-framework]]>
Sat, 22 May 2021 20:17:30 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20573 https://curi.us/comments/show/20573
curi The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/analyzing-the-cambridge-declaration-on-consciou

See also https://curi.us/2313-dennis-hackethal-plagiarist]]>
Sat, 22 May 2021 20:13:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20572 https://curi.us/comments/show/20572
curi Harassment Summary Sat, 22 May 2021 18:35:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20571 https://curi.us/comments/show/20571 curi Critical Fallibilism Forum Thu, 20 May 2021 21:16:01 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20570 https://curi.us/comments/show/20570 curi David Deutsch Tweets with my Cyberstalker and Harasser, Andy B
![](https://curi.us/img/qnPfQeDUMB2fY4D-811x256.png)]]>
Tue, 18 May 2021 20:42:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20569 https://curi.us/comments/show/20569
curi David Deutsch Tweets with my Cyberstalker and Harasser, Andy B
![](https://curi.us/img/2WDtiIKjOWWH6k6-772x201.png)]]>
Tue, 18 May 2021 20:38:31 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20568 https://curi.us/comments/show/20568
curi David Deutsch’s Denial
DD has been tweeting (pic below) with Andy's primary Twitter account since at least 2018 and also tweeted with Andy, twice, three days ago. Andy has renamed the account multiple times, and also deleted all his old tweets, so this is not a complete list. I've already found other times DD tweeted Andy that aren't in this pic.

Note: Andy only recently stopped putting the 'Andy' name on his twitter. I don't know the exact dates offhand but I believe anything from before 2021 would have been tweeted to an account that just plain said it's Andy. (Some but not all old tweets get updated to the new name when Andy changes his name; it depends how it's saved in Twitter's database.) The SeekingApatheia account is still Andy's main account but renamed. That means that e.g. if DD had ever blocked Andy, the block would still apply to the new name (DD chose not to block Andy). DD could easily know that SeekingApatheia is Andy by asking one of his friends like Lulie, or by asking an FI person, or by reading info posted to my blog. DD either knows that SeekingApatheia is Andy or is burying his head in the sand and refusing to make any effort to avoid ongoing contact with Andy (while also making public statements about not knowing Andy).

Tweets from DD directly to Andy encourage Andy. DD has never said a word to delegitimize Andy's harassment of me, and this is another thing he's doing to legitimize it.

![](https://curi.us/img/9pYpa5x6enD9GBk-519x1098.png)]]>
Sun, 16 May 2021 19:03:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20567 https://curi.us/comments/show/20567
curi curi's Microblogging
But socialization teaches people to be mean. It's kinda conflicting to assume I'm mean in socially normal ways that I don't actually say while also picking up on an anti-social vibe.]]>
Sat, 15 May 2021 19:56:16 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20566 https://curi.us/comments/show/20566
curi Critical Fallibilism Forum Fri, 14 May 2021 18:00:10 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20565 https://curi.us/comments/show/20565 curi Disowning Rami Rustom
When Rami started harassing me, he also started reaching out to CritRats to try to get allies. That's how and why he and Lulie are now in contact. She knows that (I emailed her when Rami first contacted her and she replied). She's knowingly and publicly allying with people for the purpose of working together to harass FI.]]>
Thu, 13 May 2021 23:13:13 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20564 https://curi.us/comments/show/20564
curi Disowning Rami Rustom
https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1392616269862539270

> Old identity: rational egoist
>
> New identity: whim-worshipper]]>
Thu, 13 May 2021 23:05:46 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20563 https://curi.us/comments/show/20563
curi Disowning Rami Rustom
https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1392616269862539270

![](https://curi.us/img/QQsVWwjZ3Ukuv7q-1121x567.png)]]>
Thu, 13 May 2021 23:05:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20562 https://curi.us/comments/show/20562
curi FI Learning Basecamp
Read a Basecamp archive at:

https://curi.us/basecamp/fi-learning-20858411/messages/index.html]]>
Thu, 13 May 2021 21:40:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20561 https://curi.us/comments/show/20561
curi FI Basecamp Update
Read a Basecamp archive at:

https://curi.us/basecamp/fi-learning-20858411/messages/index.html]]>
Thu, 13 May 2021 21:39:50 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20560 https://curi.us/comments/show/20560
curi curi's Microblogging
Worrying.]]>
Thu, 13 May 2021 04:44:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20559 https://curi.us/comments/show/20559
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1390828488949518337

https://christopherrufo.com/disney-backs-down/ :

> Yesterday, The Walt Disney Company responded to [my reporting](https://christopherrufo.com/the-wokest-place-on-earth/) about its divisive “diversity and inclusion” program with a statement defending the company’s commitment to “inclusivity.” The statement was riddled with errors and evasions, as I [noted on social media](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1391854079744233472/photo/1).
> Today, multiple sources have told me that Disney has completely [removed its diversity and inclusion program](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1392192481886806018) from the company’s website—effectively scrubbing it out of existence. My reporting had generated tens of millions of media impressions and a significant backlash from the public.]]>
Thu, 13 May 2021 01:31:28 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20558 https://curi.us/comments/show/20558
curi curi's Microblogging
https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/its-hard-to-criticize-science-without-looking-like-an-obsessive.html

> Can You Criticize Science (or Do Science) Without Looking Like an Obsessive? Maybe Not.

> We need to normalize the pursuit of accuracy as a good-intentioned piece of the scientific puzzle.

Haven't read yet but looks worth a read. Looks Paths Forward related.]]>
Wed, 12 May 2021 20:29:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20557 https://curi.us/comments/show/20557
curi curi's Microblogging
![](https://curi.us/img/XgswvHte2kGFeMI-1042x344.png)

the link in the tweet goes to:

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/05/10/the-javert-paradox-rears-its-ugly-head/]]>
Wed, 12 May 2021 20:24:46 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20556 https://curi.us/comments/show/20556
curi David Deutsch Lied About Me
What is DD now doing? One of the main things is he's absolutely refusing to deny the legitimacy of hurting me. He won't come out and say that I shouldn't be harassed.]]>
Wed, 12 May 2021 19:19:28 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20555 https://curi.us/comments/show/20555
Anonymous David Deutsch's Responsibility for Harassment
https://www.tiktok.com/@erinecurtis/video/6961068986503089413]]>
Wed, 12 May 2021 00:34:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20554 https://curi.us/comments/show/20554
oh my god it's turpentine Deplatforming and Fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmwcbMfZ6MU]]>
Tue, 11 May 2021 20:13:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20553 https://curi.us/comments/show/20553
Anonymous Politics Discussion
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk/desk-3e6evycucx/

![](https://i.imgur.com/FFsBR4c.png)]]>
Tue, 11 May 2021 20:06:40 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20552 https://curi.us/comments/show/20552
curi curi's Microblogging
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nVPJDelYNc]]>
Tue, 11 May 2021 17:34:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20551 https://curi.us/comments/show/20551
curi Alan Discussion Tue, 11 May 2021 16:58:09 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20550 https://curi.us/comments/show/20550 curi Alan Discussion
Point out to what standard, and for what purpose? If it was written better, it'd be easier to understand for more people (if they read it, but I think the blog is very low traffic), but I don't think I saw any writing errors where I couldn't quickly figure out what you meant.

> For the blog in general I aim to write about stuff that interests me.

I don't think the writing errors that I saw are relevant to that goal as written.]]>
Tue, 11 May 2021 16:53:37 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20549 https://curi.us/comments/show/20549
Alan Alan Discussion
For the blog in general I aim to write about stuff that interests me.]]>
Tue, 11 May 2021 07:27:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20548 https://curi.us/comments/show/20548
Alisa Alisa Discussion Tue, 11 May 2021 05:27:54 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20547 https://curi.us/comments/show/20547 Alisa Open Discussion (2021)
This guy plays a drum beat that'd normally be programmed on a computer. Reminds me of how people take TAS-only techniques in speedrunning and find a way to do them by hand.

Some of the comments on the video:

> Bro you know you can just do that on a computer right?

> Wow some of those rolls are so fast and accurate that if I only heard this I would have assumed they were computer generated. Incredible skill!

> Thats stunning. Never would think this can be done by other than composing software

> Way better than doing it on a computer. 💪 🔥 💯]]>
Tue, 11 May 2021 00:27:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20546 https://curi.us/comments/show/20546
curi Public Comments Disabled
The harassment did not stop. I did start deleting more harassing message, but the harassment has been ongoing and continued right up until I disabled comments. And I did document some of it recently, e.g. when Andy impersonated David Deutsch.]]>
Mon, 10 May 2021 21:39:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20545 https://curi.us/comments/show/20545
curi Alan Discussion
What are your goals with the article (and more generally the blog)?]]>
Mon, 10 May 2021 15:56:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20544 https://curi.us/comments/show/20544
Alan Alan Discussion Mon, 10 May 2021 08:07:05 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20543 https://curi.us/comments/show/20543 curi Jason Crawford Letter
I think it's because I didn't stop at pointing out that Tabarrok's repeated claim (about *Capitalism* not covering topics it covers extensively) was false. I also tried to analyze what that meant, which led to questioning Tabarrok's integrity and suspecting him of being a social climber.

> It looks like he leaves 50% of letters unreplied to, tho, and hasn't replied to any in the last ~6 months:

He should stop advertising himself as open to debate.]]>
Sun, 09 May 2021 23:00:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20542 https://curi.us/comments/show/20542
Max Jason Crawford Letter
> what the fuck??

One of the things I remember most vividly from P:WNI was the idea that there are only 3 legit reasons for govt. IDK how obvious it was to other ppl reading, but I found it hard to miss. To be sure I found the quote:

> The government is not a productive enterprise. It produces nothing. In respect to its legitimate functions—which are the police, the army, the law courts—it performs a service needed by a productive economy. When a government steps beyond these functions, it becomes an economy’s destroyer.

> Crawford emailed back to say that he is never going to reply because I'm "quick to make personal attacks" (that comment is a personal attack against me).

I thought your letter was solid and had appropriate tone and things. I liked it. It's hard to guess what he meant unless he considered the letter an attack (why ask to be debated?), the comments on Tabbarok an attack (not sure how this would make sense), or other stuff (mb he looked at curi.us and made up his mind based on other stuff).

It looks like he leaves 50% of letters unreplied to, tho, and hasn't replied to any in the last ~6 months: https://letter.wiki/JasonCrawford/received/]]>
Sun, 09 May 2021 22:56:05 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20541 https://curi.us/comments/show/20541
curi Alan Discussion
There are lots of smallish writing errors in this article. So I have a question: What are your goals with the article (and more generally the blog)?]]>
Sun, 09 May 2021 18:55:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20540 https://curi.us/comments/show/20540
Anonymous New Community Site Planning Update
one thing I have noticed is that "Fallibilism" seems like a particularly easy word to typo. Maybe it's the 3 L's and I's in fairly rapid succession. I don't have a better alternative - just sharing a thought.]]>
Sun, 09 May 2021 16:54:52 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20539 https://curi.us/comments/show/20539
oh my god it's turpentine Deplatforming and Fraud
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1390828488949518337]]>
Sun, 09 May 2021 07:04:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20538 https://curi.us/comments/show/20538
oh my god it's turpentine Politics Discussion
Studies saying that ocean acidification affects fish behaviour were fraudulent.]]>
Sun, 09 May 2021 06:37:10 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20537 https://curi.us/comments/show/20537
curi Jason Crawford Letter Sun, 09 May 2021 03:27:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20536 https://curi.us/comments/show/20536 curi Open Discussion (2021) Fri, 07 May 2021 19:40:37 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20535 https://curi.us/comments/show/20535 Anonymous The CCP Coronavirus
> Hoaxes, lies and collective delusions aren’t new, but the extent to which millions of Americans have embraced them may be. Thirty percent of Republicans have a favorable view of QAnon, according to a recent YouGov poll. According to other polls, more than 70 percent of Republicans believe Mr. Trump legitimately won the election, and 40 percent of Americans — including plenty of Democrats — believe *the baseless theory that Covid-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab*.]]>
Fri, 07 May 2021 16:44:16 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20534 https://curi.us/comments/show/20534
Anonymous The CCP Coronavirus
> It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

> The Daszak and Andersen letters [stating that SARS2 didn't come from a lab] were really political, not scientific, statements...

>China’s central authorities ... did their utmost to conceal the nature of the tragedy and China’s responsibility for it. They suppressed all records at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and closed down its virus databases. They released a trickle of information, much of which may have been outright false or designed to misdirect and mislead. They did their best to manipulate the WHO’s inquiry into the virus’s origins, and led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around.

> the National Institutes of Health was supporting gain-of-function [enhancements of viral capabilities] research, of a kind that could have generated the SARS2 virus, in an unsupervised foreign lab that was doing work in BSL2 biosafety conditions.]]>
Fri, 07 May 2021 16:39:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20533 https://curi.us/comments/show/20533
Max Friend Groups, Social Legitimacy, Abusers and No Contact Requests
Even though I'm somewhat familiar with a lot of the backstory, this post was good and helped me understand things more deeply. Thanks.

I have some new ideas about how I'll act in future (regarding the harrassment issue and broader hypocracy of the relevant critrats); tho the ideas aren't well formed yet.]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 23:39:15 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20532 https://curi.us/comments/show/20532
discourse alternative; mb worth looking into Max New Community Site Planning Update
Mb the featureset / integrations aren't competitive, tho.

Looks like the code is 50/50 typescript and scala. https://github.com/debiki/talkyard

The reason I like and use talkyard is that there's comments integration for blogs and it allows anonymous comments/posts. Here's an example of a forum thread that got created for comments, and the blog post where the comments are hosted:
- https://forum.voteflux.org/-11/comments-for-httpsvotefluxorg20160918party-meeting-2016-09-19
- https://voteflux.org/2016/09/18/party-meeting-2016-09-19/]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 23:10:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20531 https://curi.us/comments/show/20531
Max New Community Site Planning Update
> Discourse is pretty big and 5 years of development probably helped, and I don't think I need any plugins (except https if that requires one? i haven't looked into that at all).

I agree. The letsencrypt plugin was 3rd party when I used it (letsencrypt was really new at that point, but since then IME all the plugins and tools based on it are pretty easy and reliable)

#19

> i think those are all standard plugins, not third party, that are unlikely to cause trouble?

I guess that 1st party plugins will be supported -> unlikely to cause issues. They're probably structured as plugins to keep things maintainable and out of the core codebase (which makes sense). A lot of the plugins you mentioned sound useful.

#20

> not sure if oauth is a good idea or not. thoughts?

IMO it doesn't matter that much. It makes it easier for ppl to register I guess b/c there's no separate user/pass combo for the site. One *major* reason that oauth might be good is that it can be linked to existing accounts that have some reputation (e.g., github). might be useful for anti-spam/harassment. However, it might de-anon ppl depending on how discourse handles it (e.g., shows ppl the account mb; IDK how discourse works particularly in that regard).

#28

> maybe i should rename Friendly to something like "Learning and Discussion" and then say some friendly stuff in the description?

IDK; I think naming it Friendly and saying stuff about learning and discussion in the description might be better.

Some thoughts: It sort of feels like the friendly section is for practicing philosophy like you'd practice skills for a sport -- it's a section to *focus* on particular things. Whereas the unbounded section is more like actually competing in the sport/game/thing. Like: you don't get to reset if you make a mistake in a game, and you don't get to avoid criticisms in unbounded.]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 23:03:27 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20530 https://curi.us/comments/show/20530
curi New Community Site Planning Update
Off-topic discussions such as politics and news.

You can post about video games, food, tv, music, etc. You can post stuff that isn't intellectual or isn't of general interest.

Note: Any topic can go in Unbounded or Friendly if treated thoughtfully, e.g. using song lyrics as an example to criticize popular culture. But avoid starting debates about current politics outside of Other.]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 18:42:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20529 https://curi.us/comments/show/20529
curi New Community Site Planning Update
I moved more text out of the first paragraphs. Here are current full descriptions:

---

# Unbounded

Critical discussion seeking progress without topic boundaries.

Expect difficult criticism about topics that you didn't intentionally bring up. Some effort to follow up on your messages is expected.

Criticism may discuss your dishonesty, emotions, incompetence, evasion, patterns of error, discussion methodology, morality, or life decisions. You may be criticized for ending a topic without reaching a conclusion. Your time management and prioritization decisions may be criticized.

If you stop responding, people may still analyze what you said and critically discuss it without you. You can't take your posts back or delete them (you can say that you changed your mind, but can't hide the past).

Any thoughtful topics are fine except politics and news. Good topics include: philosophy, rationality, learning, thinking methodology, discussion organization, morality, memes, science, history, writing, grammar, math, evolution, programming, statistics, economics, political philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, parenting, education, relationships, atheism, skepticism, business, sales, marketing, art, design, social dynamics, culture, and decisions people face in their lives.

---

# Friendly

Discuss, think and learn with a friendlier atmosphere. Avoid tangential, meta or harsh criticism.

In Friendly, posters choose what topics they want to discuss. Suppose someone posts a physics question. Don't reply about how their question reveals that they're [dishonest](https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/lying), [emotional](https://fallibleideas.com/emotions) or [overreaching](https://fallibleideas.com/overreach). Don't criticize them for ending the discussion early or for not doing [Paths Forward](https://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward). Those would be topic changes away from their intended topic (physics). If you do want replies like that, put your topic in Unbounded.

Any thoughtful topics are fine except politics and news. Good topics include: philosophy, rationality, learning, thinking methodology, discussion organization, morality, memes, science, history, writing, grammar, math, evolution, programming, statistics, economics, political philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, parenting, education, relationships, atheism, skepticism, business, sales, marketing, art, design, social dynamics, culture, and decisions people face in their lives.]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 18:38:01 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20528 https://curi.us/comments/show/20528
curi New Community Site Planning Update Thu, 06 May 2021 17:54:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20527 https://curi.us/comments/show/20527 Justin Mallone New Community Site Planning Update Thu, 06 May 2021 17:54:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20526 https://curi.us/comments/show/20526 Justin Mallone New Community Site Planning Update Thu, 06 May 2021 17:52:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20525 https://curi.us/comments/show/20525 Anonymous New Community Site Planning Update
- Unbounded
- Learning & Discussion
- Other

is that it implies that learning and discussion do NOT go in unbounded, since they have their own separate category. but they are also what unbounded consists of.]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 17:51:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20524 https://curi.us/comments/show/20524
Anonymous New Community Site Planning Update
> do you having naming suggestions that'd be clearer?

could be something like "Criticism Level: Unbounded" and "Criticism Level: Friendly" to really try to emphasize what you're choosing between in the different forums, but that's maybe a bit long and I dunno how other fits in there]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 17:51:32 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20523 https://curi.us/comments/show/20523
curi New Community Site Planning Update
it's really the Bounded category but i don't want to name it that way. the point is you can pick unbounded or bounded discussion (or off topic for politics, news, gaming, food, music, celebs, movies, tv, etc, tho anything can be on topic if you actually analyze it and treat it seriously.

so philosophy discussion (very broadly), divided into bounded or not, and then off topic.]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 17:49:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20522 https://curi.us/comments/show/20522
curi New Community Site Planning Update Thu, 06 May 2021 17:46:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20521 https://curi.us/comments/show/20521 Anonymous New Community Site Planning Update
yes in Friendly

> Should there be a learning project category?

no, that goes in Unbounded or Friendly, your choice.

> Someone might read existing categories and see: 1) Debate zone, 2) Chit-chat, 3) Random. Are they gonna have a bad time?

do you having naming suggestions that'd be clearer?]]>
Thu, 06 May 2021 17:46:11 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20520 https://curi.us/comments/show/20520
Anonymous New Community Site Planning Update Thu, 06 May 2021 17:44:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20519 https://curi.us/comments/show/20519 Anonymous New Community Site Planning Update Thu, 06 May 2021 17:41:02 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/20518 https://curi.us/comments/show/20518