Because most people think that when they read an article they either agree or disagree and that’s pretty clear the moment they read the article.
The idea that the article contains a parable that creates cognitive change with a time lack of a day, week, month or year isn’t in the common understanding of cognition.
It’s not a phenomena that’s well studied.
That means there a lot of claims on the subject for which people would want proof but no scientific studies to back up those claims.
I just read Dune and it contains the description of a character:
It was obvious that Fenring seldom did anything he felt to be unnecessary, or used two words where one would do, or held himself to a single meaning in a single phrase.
Speaking in that way where phrases generally have more than one meaning is not easy when you try to make complex arguments that are defensible.
I think I must have explained myself poorly … you don’t have to take my subjective experience or my observations as proof of anything on the subject of parables or on cognition. I agree that double entendre can make complex arguments less defensible, but would caution that it may never be completely eliminated from natural language because of the way discourse communities are believed to function.
Specifically, what subject contains many claims for which there is little proof? Are we talking now about literary analysis?
If you also mean to refer to the many claims about the mechanisms of cognition that lack a well founded neuro-biological foundation, there are several source materials informing my opinion on the subject. I understand that the lack experimentally verifiable results in the field of cognition seems troubling at first glance. For the purposes of streamlining the essay, I assumed a relationship between cognition and intelligence by which intelligence can only be achieved through cognition. Whether this inherently cements the concept of intelligence into the unverifiable annals of natural language, I gladly leave up to each reader to decide. Based on my sense of how the concepts are used here on LW, intelligence and cognition are not completely well-defined in such a way that they could be implemented in strictly rational terms.
Because most people think that when they read an article they either agree or disagree and that’s pretty clear the moment they read the article.
The idea that the article contains a parable that creates cognitive change with a time lack of a day, week, month or year isn’t in the common understanding of cognition. It’s not a phenomena that’s well studied.
That means there a lot of claims on the subject for which people would want proof but no scientific studies to back up those claims.
I just read Dune and it contains the description of a character:
Speaking in that way where phrases generally have more than one meaning is not easy when you try to make complex arguments that are defensible.
I think I must have explained myself poorly … you don’t have to take my subjective experience or my observations as proof of anything on the subject of parables or on cognition. I agree that double entendre can make complex arguments less defensible, but would caution that it may never be completely eliminated from natural language because of the way discourse communities are believed to function.
Specifically, what subject contains many claims for which there is little proof? Are we talking now about literary analysis?
If you also mean to refer to the many claims about the mechanisms of cognition that lack a well founded neuro-biological foundation, there are several source materials informing my opinion on the subject. I understand that the lack experimentally verifiable results in the field of cognition seems troubling at first glance. For the purposes of streamlining the essay, I assumed a relationship between cognition and intelligence by which intelligence can only be achieved through cognition. Whether this inherently cements the concept of intelligence into the unverifiable annals of natural language, I gladly leave up to each reader to decide. Based on my sense of how the concepts are used here on LW, intelligence and cognition are not completely well-defined in such a way that they could be implemented in strictly rational terms.
However, your thoughts on this are welcome.