Some people want motors that are efficient, high-power or similar. Some people might instead be making a kinetic sculpture out of lego and they actually are primarily interested in whether the motor’s cycle looks psychedelic and it makes a pleasing noise. Neither group are wrong.
Some people want arguments that lead efficiently to a better view of the base reality. Some people are more interested in understanding the opposing side’s philosophy and how they reason about it. Some people want the argument to be engaging, fun or dramatic. Some people prioritise still being friends when the argument is over. Some people like the idea of ‘winning’ an argument like winning a game. None of them are wrong.
Putting a label on the people who actually want their motors to move energy efficiently (calling them “physicsts” or “engineers”) and contrasting them with “artists” or something might be a useful line to draw. Similarly, “rationalist discourse” might be a poor label, but if it is was called “truth seeking discussion” or similar I think it is actually carving our a fairly specific sub-part of the possible space.
Some people want motors that are efficient, high-power or similar. Some people might instead be making a kinetic sculpture out of lego and they actually are primarily interested in whether the motor’s cycle looks psychedelic and it makes a pleasing noise. Neither group are wrong.
Some people want arguments that lead efficiently to a better view of the base reality. Some people are more interested in understanding the opposing side’s philosophy and how they reason about it. Some people want the argument to be engaging, fun or dramatic. Some people prioritise still being friends when the argument is over. Some people like the idea of ‘winning’ an argument like winning a game. None of them are wrong.
Putting a label on the people who actually want their motors to move energy efficiently (calling them “physicsts” or “engineers”) and contrasting them with “artists” or something might be a useful line to draw. Similarly, “rationalist discourse” might be a poor label, but if it is was called “truth seeking discussion” or similar I think it is actually carving our a fairly specific sub-part of the possible space.