LW has addressed CR in a weaker sense: e.g., some time ago you came here and tried to persuade us to abandon LW-style probabilistic inference in favour of your version of critical rationalism; the community took a look at your ideas, was not impressed, and downvoted your posts to hell.
downvotes aren’t arguments. addressing ideas, in my post, refers to intellectually addressing them – e.g. explaining why an idea is incorrect.
anyway, do you have any suggestion as to a Path Forward to get the intellectual disagreements resolved?
also did you actually read about Paths Forward? If so, why don’t you reply to it directly and point out a mistake in it?
Downvoting is not an argument because downvoting is a judgement that an idea is not worthy of “intellectually addressing” (on this forum). That’s not not addressing an idea.
I did not claim that downvotes are arguments, of course. What they are is assessments. As it happens, your posts about CR here got comments as well as downvotes.
do you have any suggestion as to a Path Forward to get the intellectual disagreements resolved?
Not necessarily, just as if we were visited by fundamentalists demanding that everything be “proved from scripture” I would not necessarily have a suggestion as to how to Prove From Scripture that their fundamentalism was wrong.
And I think that “to get the intellectual disagreements resolved” is a noble but hilariously overoptimistic goal. We are not, realistically, going to end up agreeing about everything, and picking an approach on the basis of whether it could in principle lead to us agreeing about everything is not a good idea.
did you actually read about Paths Forward?
Yes.
If so, why don’t you reply to it directly and point out a mistake in it?
Because I think many other things I could do with the same time I could use for that would be more productive.
downvotes aren’t arguments. addressing ideas, in my post, refers to intellectually addressing them – e.g. explaining why an idea is incorrect.
anyway, do you have any suggestion as to a Path Forward to get the intellectual disagreements resolved?
also did you actually read about Paths Forward? If so, why don’t you reply to it directly and point out a mistake in it?
Downvoting is not an argument because downvoting is a judgement that an idea is not worthy of “intellectually addressing” (on this forum). That’s not not addressing an idea.
I did not claim that downvotes are arguments, of course. What they are is assessments. As it happens, your posts about CR here got comments as well as downvotes.
Not necessarily, just as if we were visited by fundamentalists demanding that everything be “proved from scripture” I would not necessarily have a suggestion as to how to Prove From Scripture that their fundamentalism was wrong.
And I think that “to get the intellectual disagreements resolved” is a noble but hilariously overoptimistic goal. We are not, realistically, going to end up agreeing about everything, and picking an approach on the basis of whether it could in principle lead to us agreeing about everything is not a good idea.
Yes.
Because I think many other things I could do with the same time I could use for that would be more productive.