If you ask “Is it better to do X, or to do Y?”, and you receive three smart answers supporting X, and three smart answers supporting Y, at the end of the day you still don’t know whether you should do X or Y.
The goal of reading a site exploring a political question shouldn’t be that the reader comes away with: “I don’t need to think myself, the community decided that X is right, so I support X because I want to support what my tribe has chosen to support.”
Ideally the person leaves with a mind that’s more open than when they came.
I don’t need to think myself, the community decided that X is right
This is how I accept 99% of information about the world. I have never seen an atom, never been in Paris, still believe they exist. A community I consider trustworthy about the topic has decided that they exist, and I don’t have time to personally verify everything.
Getting more inputs for your independent research is great if you do have time and other resources necessary to do the research. Making the inputs public is also good, because some of the participants may have the time. But inputs without conclusion is still an incomplete work.
Ideally the person leaves with a mind that’s more open than when they came.
Is adjusting probabilities towards 50% a good thing?
Is adjusting probabilities towards 50% a good thing?
I don’t think that openness is mainly about probabilities but most people are heavily overconfident about most of their political positions so moving the probabilities closer to 50% is a good thing.
The world would be a much better place if more people would respond to Is policy A better than policy B? with I don't know instead of Policy A is better because my tribe says it's better.
I have never seen an atom, never been in Paris, still believe they exist. A community I consider trustworthy about the topic has decided that they exist, and I don’t have time to personally verify everything.
Let’s ask instead of are there atoms?is helium a molecule?. Thomas Kuhn wrote about the issue:
An investigator who hoped to learn something about what scientists took the atomic theory to be asked a distinguished physicist and an eminent chemist whether a single atom of helium was or was not a molecule. Both answered without hesitation, but their answers were not the same. For the chemist the atom of helium was a molecule because it behaved like one with respect to the kinetic theory of gases. For the physicist, on the other hand, the helium atom was not a molecule because it displayed no molecular spectrum. Presumably both men were talking of the same particle, but they were viewing it through their own research training and practice.”
You get a different answer to the question depending on who you ask is helium a molecule?.Does that mean that you should adjust probabilities towards 50% on the question of is helium a molecule?? No, that wouldn’t make any sense to average the 100% certainity of the physicist that helium is no molecule with the 100% certainity of the chemist that it is towards 50%.
I would want participants who read a political dicussion come away with thinking that there are multiple ways of looking at the debate in question.
But inputs without conclusion is still an incomplete work.
That’s basically rejecting skepticism. Skepticism is about being okay with the fact that you don’t have a conclusion to every question.
Keeping questions open for years is important for understanding them better.
That’s a very special kind of question: one that’s almost entirely about definitions of words. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone here that different people or groups use words in different ways, and therefore that questions about definitions often don’t have a definite answer.
Many many questions have some element of this (e.g., if some etymology enthusiast insists that an “atom” must be indivisible then the things most people call atoms aren’t “atoms” for him, and for all we know there may actually be no “atoms”) and that’s important to know. But this doesn’t look to me like a good model for political disagreement; word definitions aren’t usually a big part of political disagreements.
(What is usually a big part of those disagreements is divergence between different people’s or groups’ values, which can also lead to situations where there’s no such thing as The Right Answer.)
That’s basically rejecting skepticism.
Unless you allow the “conclusion” to be something like “We don’t yet have enough information to know whether A or B is the better course of action”, or “A is almost certainly better if what you mostly care about is X, and B is almost certainly better if what you mostly care about is Y”, or “The dispute between A and B is mostly terminological”. All of which I’m guessing Viliam would be fine with; it looks to me like what he’s unsatisfied with is debates that basically consist of some arguments for A and some arguments for B, with no attempt to figure out what conclusion—which might well be a conclusion with a lot of uncertainty to it—should follow from looking at all those arguments together.
That’s a very special kind of question: one that’s almost entirely about definitions of words.
On one level, yes, this is just a definition issue.
On a deeper level no, because particular answers to such questions place the phenomena into a specific framework. Notice that two answers to “is helium a molecule” arose not because two people consulted two different dictionaries. They arose because these two people are used to thinking about molecules in very different ways—both valid in their respective domains.
In that sense this “special kind of question” could be about defining terms, but it also could be about the context within which examine the issue.
I agree that the disagreement about whether a helium atom should be considered a molecule is related to what mental framework one slots the question into. I don’t think this in any way stops it being a disagreement about definitions of words. (In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not taking “X is a disagreement about definitions” to imply “X is trivial” or anything of the kind.)
The physicist and chemist in Kuhn’s story could—I don’t know whether they would if actually asked—both have said something like this: “It turns out that there are a few different notions close enough together that we use the word “molecule” for all of them, and they don’t all agree about what to call a helium atom”. Again, this is far from what happens in most political disagreements.
For the avoidance of doubt again, I am not denying that some political disagreements are like this. For instance, there are cases where two sides would both claim to be maximizing equality, but one side means “treat everyone exactly the same” and another means “treat everyone the same but compensate for inequalities X, Y, and Z elsewhere”. I suggest that this is actually best considered a disagreement about values rather than about definitions, though. (Each group prefers to define “equality” in a particular way because they think what-they-call-equality is more important than what-the-other-guys-call-equality.)
this is actually best considered a disagreement about values rather than about definitions
Well, yes, because in the political context “framework” very often means “value framework”. However both definitions and frameworks matter—it is still the case that the argument will get nowhere until people agree on the meaning of the words they are using.
My experience is that if someone begins “Well, yes” rather than, say, just “Yes”, their intention is generally something less positive than simply agreeing with you. (“Well, yes. What kind of idiot would need that to be said explicitly?” “Well, yes, but you’re forgetting about X, Y, and Z.” “Well, yes, I suppose so, but I don’t think that’s actually quite the right question.”)
That’s a very special kind of question: one that’s almost entirely about definitions of words.
For Thomas Kuhn it’s a an issue of different paradigms.
When we look at the questions of atoms then saying: “Atoms exist.” likely means “Thinking of matter as being made up of atoms is a valuable paradigm.”
Lavoiser came up with describing oxygen as a new element. In doing so he rejected the paradgim that chemistry should analyse principles like phlogiston but rather think of matter as being made up of atoms.
Calling oxygen dephlogisticated air is more than just an issue of calling it a different name. It’s an issue at the heart of the conflict of two scientific paradigms.
Both the phlogiston theory and the oxygen theory successfully predict that if you put a glass over a candle the candle while go out. The oxygen theory says that it’s because there no oxygen anymore in the air. The phlogiston theory says that it’s because the air is full of phlogiston so that it can’t take any more additional phlogiston.
Phlogiston chemistry was a huge improvement over the chemistry of the four elements which neither explained or predicted that the candle would go out.
Understanding different paradigms to look at an political issue is often an important part of having a political debate. It moves the issue beyond tribe A vs. tribe B. Of course you can have a tribe A vs. tribe B political discussion but often that’s not the kind of political debate that I like to have.
In reality the kind of conclusions that parliaments draw from political debate are laws that fill hundreds of pages that specify all sorts of little details that happen to be important.
If the GBS does policy documents specifying details and coming to a conclusion makes sense but I don’t think that’s a good goal for a discussion on a forum like Omnilibrium.
The goal of reading a site exploring a political question shouldn’t be that the reader comes away with: “I don’t need to think myself, the community decided that X is right, so I support X because I want to support what my tribe has chosen to support.”
Ideally the person leaves with a mind that’s more open than when they came.
This is how I accept 99% of information about the world. I have never seen an atom, never been in Paris, still believe they exist. A community I consider trustworthy about the topic has decided that they exist, and I don’t have time to personally verify everything.
Getting more inputs for your independent research is great if you do have time and other resources necessary to do the research. Making the inputs public is also good, because some of the participants may have the time. But inputs without conclusion is still an incomplete work.
Is adjusting probabilities towards 50% a good thing?
I don’t think that openness is mainly about probabilities but most people are heavily overconfident about most of their political positions so moving the probabilities closer to 50% is a good thing.
The world would be a much better place if more people would respond to
Is policy A better than policy B?withI don't knowinstead ofPolicy A is better because my tribe says it's better.Let’s ask instead of
are there atoms?is helium a molecule?. Thomas Kuhn wrote about the issue:You get a different answer to the question depending on who you ask
is helium a molecule?.Does that mean that you should adjust probabilities towards 50% on the question ofis helium a molecule?? No, that wouldn’t make any sense to average the 100% certainity of the physicist that helium is no molecule with the 100% certainity of the chemist that it is towards 50%.I would want participants who read a political dicussion come away with thinking that there are multiple ways of looking at the debate in question.
That’s basically rejecting skepticism. Skepticism is about being okay with the fact that you don’t have a conclusion to every question. Keeping questions open for years is important for understanding them better.
That’s a very special kind of question: one that’s almost entirely about definitions of words. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone here that different people or groups use words in different ways, and therefore that questions about definitions often don’t have a definite answer.
Many many questions have some element of this (e.g., if some etymology enthusiast insists that an “atom” must be indivisible then the things most people call atoms aren’t “atoms” for him, and for all we know there may actually be no “atoms”) and that’s important to know. But this doesn’t look to me like a good model for political disagreement; word definitions aren’t usually a big part of political disagreements.
(What is usually a big part of those disagreements is divergence between different people’s or groups’ values, which can also lead to situations where there’s no such thing as The Right Answer.)
Unless you allow the “conclusion” to be something like “We don’t yet have enough information to know whether A or B is the better course of action”, or “A is almost certainly better if what you mostly care about is X, and B is almost certainly better if what you mostly care about is Y”, or “The dispute between A and B is mostly terminological”. All of which I’m guessing Viliam would be fine with; it looks to me like what he’s unsatisfied with is debates that basically consist of some arguments for A and some arguments for B, with no attempt to figure out what conclusion—which might well be a conclusion with a lot of uncertainty to it—should follow from looking at all those arguments together.
On one level, yes, this is just a definition issue.
On a deeper level no, because particular answers to such questions place the phenomena into a specific framework. Notice that two answers to “is helium a molecule” arose not because two people consulted two different dictionaries. They arose because these two people are used to thinking about molecules in very different ways—both valid in their respective domains.
In that sense this “special kind of question” could be about defining terms, but it also could be about the context within which examine the issue.
I agree that the disagreement about whether a helium atom should be considered a molecule is related to what mental framework one slots the question into. I don’t think this in any way stops it being a disagreement about definitions of words. (In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not taking “X is a disagreement about definitions” to imply “X is trivial” or anything of the kind.)
The physicist and chemist in Kuhn’s story could—I don’t know whether they would if actually asked—both have said something like this: “It turns out that there are a few different notions close enough together that we use the word “molecule” for all of them, and they don’t all agree about what to call a helium atom”. Again, this is far from what happens in most political disagreements.
For the avoidance of doubt again, I am not denying that some political disagreements are like this. For instance, there are cases where two sides would both claim to be maximizing equality, but one side means “treat everyone exactly the same” and another means “treat everyone the same but compensate for inequalities X, Y, and Z elsewhere”. I suggest that this is actually best considered a disagreement about values rather than about definitions, though. (Each group prefers to define “equality” in a particular way because they think what-they-call-equality is more important than what-the-other-guys-call-equality.)
Well, yes, because in the political context “framework” very often means “value framework”. However both definitions and frameworks matter—it is still the case that the argument will get nowhere until people agree on the meaning of the words they are using.
It feels as if you may be trying to correct a mistake I’m not making. I agree that definitions matter. As I said two comments upthread:
Nope, you just have all your defensive shields up and at full power :-) I am agreeing with you here.
Full power is more dramatic than that :-).
My experience is that if someone begins “Well, yes” rather than, say, just “Yes”, their intention is generally something less positive than simply agreeing with you. (“Well, yes. What kind of idiot would need that to be said explicitly?” “Well, yes, but you’re forgetting about X, Y, and Z.” “Well, yes, I suppose so, but I don’t think that’s actually quite the right question.”)
I’ll work on augmenting my expressions of enthusiasm :-)
For Thomas Kuhn it’s a an issue of different paradigms.
When we look at the questions of atoms then saying: “Atoms exist.” likely means “Thinking of matter as being made up of atoms is a valuable paradigm.”
Lavoiser came up with describing oxygen as a new element. In doing so he rejected the paradgim that chemistry should analyse principles like phlogiston but rather think of matter as being made up of atoms.
Calling oxygen dephlogisticated air is more than just an issue of calling it a different name. It’s an issue at the heart of the conflict of two scientific paradigms.
Both the phlogiston theory and the oxygen theory successfully predict that if you put a glass over a candle the candle while go out. The oxygen theory says that it’s because there no oxygen anymore in the air. The phlogiston theory says that it’s because the air is full of phlogiston so that it can’t take any more additional phlogiston.
Phlogiston chemistry was a huge improvement over the chemistry of the four elements which neither explained or predicted that the candle would go out.
Understanding different paradigms to look at an political issue is often an important part of having a political debate. It moves the issue beyond tribe A vs. tribe B. Of course you can have a tribe A vs. tribe B political discussion but often that’s not the kind of political debate that I like to have.
In reality the kind of conclusions that parliaments draw from political debate are laws that fill hundreds of pages that specify all sorts of little details that happen to be important. If the GBS does policy documents specifying details and coming to a conclusion makes sense but I don’t think that’s a good goal for a discussion on a forum like Omnilibrium.