“My disagreement is with the abstraction and universality of application, not necessarily with the thesis itself”—I don’t quite follow this issue. I don’t claim that a non-direct application always exists, just that they often do. And trying to figure out when they do or don’t is comparable to trying to figure out if a random bit of maths has any real world applications. You could try to just check a bunch of possibilities, but there could always be one that you just didn’t think of.
“Those hypotheticals which I choose not to engage without lots of specificity are the ones where I think the details matter, and the unreal-ness is making assumptions about those details or asserting that they don’t matter.”—I have no issue with someone pointing out that analysis of a hypothetical shouldn’t be directly applied. However, many people seem to insist that a hypothetical includes factor X, including when factor X would massively complicate the model and distract from the purpose of the exercise.
Hmm. I’m now even more of the opinion that you’re complaining in the abstract about something that is sometimes justified and sometimes not, and you should instead complain specifically about the times when it’s not. Making the abstract argument is suspicious to me—it feels like you’re asking for something that I already give mixed with something that I don’t intend to give.
In other words, now I’m not sure if I’m in the group of people you’re complaining about / trying to change. If you’d give some specific examples, it’d be way easier to even know if we disagree :)
Note that I agree that this applies to random bits of maths too - It requires effort to distinguish between between “so what”?, “that’s interesting”, and “that has implications that matter”. That effort is not automatically due from an audience—it needs to be done (or at least started) by the person presenting the theorem/result.
“My disagreement is with the abstraction and universality of application, not necessarily with the thesis itself”—I don’t quite follow this issue. I don’t claim that a non-direct application always exists, just that they often do. And trying to figure out when they do or don’t is comparable to trying to figure out if a random bit of maths has any real world applications. You could try to just check a bunch of possibilities, but there could always be one that you just didn’t think of.
“Those hypotheticals which I choose not to engage without lots of specificity are the ones where I think the details matter, and the unreal-ness is making assumptions about those details or asserting that they don’t matter.”—I have no issue with someone pointing out that analysis of a hypothetical shouldn’t be directly applied. However, many people seem to insist that a hypothetical includes factor X, including when factor X would massively complicate the model and distract from the purpose of the exercise.
Hmm. I’m now even more of the opinion that you’re complaining in the abstract about something that is sometimes justified and sometimes not, and you should instead complain specifically about the times when it’s not. Making the abstract argument is suspicious to me—it feels like you’re asking for something that I already give mixed with something that I don’t intend to give.
In other words, now I’m not sure if I’m in the group of people you’re complaining about / trying to change. If you’d give some specific examples, it’d be way easier to even know if we disagree :)
Note that I agree that this applies to random bits of maths too - It requires effort to distinguish between between “so what”?, “that’s interesting”, and “that has implications that matter”. That effort is not automatically due from an audience—it needs to be done (or at least started) by the person presenting the theorem/result.