I’m not arguing it’s not a thing, I’m arguing that it’s hard to have an objective debate about it due to being ill-defined. The fact that we are now having this debate is indicative of this. Of course, I have nothing against debating the possible meanings of wisdom. But the subject of the post is ‘quantifying wisdom’ so I expect there to be some quantification.
But the subject of the post is ‘quantifying wisdom’ so I expect there to be some quantification.
So the bit where they laid out a definition (noting that it is not universally-agreed upon but contending that it’s useful) and expressed a method for quantifying it didn’t catch your attention?
(IMO it’s not a great post as yet—I think the topic’s fairly important but given how it started I was underwhelmed by where it went. I’m just saying, they did technically do the thing you’re complaining about them not doing here...)
Admitting that a definition is informal doesn’t make it acceptable.
Try this:
“Art is defined as anything I, passive_fist, personally like. I admit this might not be a universally agreed-upon definition, but it is a definition that will be used throughout this article.”
Again, I want to stress that I have nothing against debating the meaning of Wisdom. In fact, I would enjoy debating it. But let’s not pretend we’re having a logical argument here.
Yeah, I’m not sure how that’s appreciably different from defining “intelligence” as “optimization power” other’n that’s a local norm, whereas there is no local norm for “wisdom.”
Intelligence is also a hard-to-define term, no doubt about it. And the same arguments I’ve been giving also apply to intelligence. But when you try to do an even finer act of logical separation—separating wisdom from intelligence—the arguments apply doubly.
I’m not arguing it’s not a thing, I’m arguing that it’s hard to have an objective debate about it due to being ill-defined. The fact that we are now having this debate is indicative of this. Of course, I have nothing against debating the possible meanings of wisdom. But the subject of the post is ‘quantifying wisdom’ so I expect there to be some quantification.
So the bit where they laid out a definition (noting that it is not universally-agreed upon but contending that it’s useful) and expressed a method for quantifying it didn’t catch your attention?
(IMO it’s not a great post as yet—I think the topic’s fairly important but given how it started I was underwhelmed by where it went. I’m just saying, they did technically do the thing you’re complaining about them not doing here...)
Admitting that a definition is informal doesn’t make it acceptable.
Try this:
“Art is defined as anything I, passive_fist, personally like. I admit this might not be a universally agreed-upon definition, but it is a definition that will be used throughout this article.”
Again, I want to stress that I have nothing against debating the meaning of Wisdom. In fact, I would enjoy debating it. But let’s not pretend we’re having a logical argument here.
Yeah, I’m not sure how that’s appreciably different from defining “intelligence” as “optimization power” other’n that’s a local norm, whereas there is no local norm for “wisdom.”
Intelligence is also a hard-to-define term, no doubt about it. And the same arguments I’ve been giving also apply to intelligence. But when you try to do an even finer act of logical separation—separating wisdom from intelligence—the arguments apply doubly.