...criticism without suggestion is useless and deserving of dismissal.
I find a flaw in Andrew Wiles’ proof of FLT. Should I mention it if I don’t have any ideas for my own proof? After all, FLT is definitely true anyway.
Eliezer is finally coding his FAI, and I notice that there is a way the code might fail to maintain its goal system during self-modification. Should I tell him this if I don’t personally know how to fix the problem?
My uncle, a crown attorney, is prosecuting a rapist based solely on eyewitness identification across racial lines, something I know to be problematic. I have no idea who the rapist is, and there are no other leads. Should I bring it up?
Professor Peach, after much pondering of what to do about the severely mentally handicapped, decides that since “nature is about survival of the fittest,” euthanasia would be the best option. I argue he has made a mistake in ethical reasoning (the naturalistic fallacy), but I have no idea what should be done about the institutionalized mentally handicapped either. Should I shut up?
There is no such thing, really, as criticism without suggestion. Sometimes the suggestion is just “Woah, something’s very wrong here!” That’s usually OK.
These are great suggestions. Thank you. I think I just changed my mind.
My model didn’t account for someone actually pointing out flaws using their own reasoning in novel situations. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone actually do this.
In my experience, criticism in the wild is the art of finding and repeating another thinker’s reasoning to re-attack a clearly wrong idea again without adding anything new to human thought or attempting to do something tangible to improve things.
The reason that I dismiss critics like this is because they are engaging in an enjoyable, negative-sum activity by sitting around and sniping at people for “being wrong” while not engaging in the less enjoyable, positive-sum activity of actually trying to do something better. People who actually do things understand this which I think is what Roosevelt was getting at in pointing out that it is unhelpful to mindlessly repeat inadequacies of the best functioning plans without attempting to invent and/or implement alternatives.
In my experience, criticism in the wild is the art of finding and repeating another thinker’s reasoning to re-attack a clearly wrong idea again without adding anything new to human thought or attempting to do something tangible to improve things.
Yup, there is definitely that aspect to things, alas.
Though I would submit that even such unoriginal criticism may be justified, given an important rhetorical objective.
I find a flaw in Andrew Wiles’ proof of FLT. Should I mention it if I don’t have any ideas for my own proof? After all, FLT is definitely true anyway.
Eliezer is finally coding his FAI, and I notice that there is a way the code might fail to maintain its goal system during self-modification. Should I tell him this if I don’t personally know how to fix the problem?
My uncle, a crown attorney, is prosecuting a rapist based solely on eyewitness identification across racial lines, something I know to be problematic. I have no idea who the rapist is, and there are no other leads. Should I bring it up?
Professor Peach, after much pondering of what to do about the severely mentally handicapped, decides that since “nature is about survival of the fittest,” euthanasia would be the best option. I argue he has made a mistake in ethical reasoning (the naturalistic fallacy), but I have no idea what should be done about the institutionalized mentally handicapped either. Should I shut up?
There is no such thing, really, as criticism without suggestion. Sometimes the suggestion is just “Woah, something’s very wrong here!” That’s usually OK.
These are great suggestions. Thank you. I think I just changed my mind.
My model didn’t account for someone actually pointing out flaws using their own reasoning in novel situations. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone actually do this.
In my experience, criticism in the wild is the art of finding and repeating another thinker’s reasoning to re-attack a clearly wrong idea again without adding anything new to human thought or attempting to do something tangible to improve things.
The reason that I dismiss critics like this is because they are engaging in an enjoyable, negative-sum activity by sitting around and sniping at people for “being wrong” while not engaging in the less enjoyable, positive-sum activity of actually trying to do something better. People who actually do things understand this which I think is what Roosevelt was getting at in pointing out that it is unhelpful to mindlessly repeat inadequacies of the best functioning plans without attempting to invent and/or implement alternatives.
Yup, there is definitely that aspect to things, alas.
Though I would submit that even such unoriginal criticism may be justified, given an important rhetorical objective.