MetaMonday #9: Reviewing

[@MsJavaWolf]

Great to see another MetaMonday. Don't worry too much about it and don't burn yourself out, philosophy will still be here in a month or two :)

[@SevKev-d4z]

Its great to see you again! 🎉 Hope your health is ok and looking forward to more videos!!

[@lanceindependent]

Health is fine! Just life changes and too much else going on. Thanks!

[@dr.h8r]

Gotta love how Kane has the “I don’t know WHAT the fuck is going on” lazytown meme face for 90% of the video.

[@sergiodzg]

We are so back!!! 🔥🔥🔥

[@Mon000]

Kane B and Lance content: amazing stuff! I believe I understand your view Lance and I am very sympathetic to most elements of it, I'm wondering how you would deal with a mathematician that says that an elementary notion of mathematics is unintelligible like a set. Often one starts doing mathematics by saying a set is a collection of elements and we all nod along in agreement. How would you answer a student that insists "a collection" is unintelligible or an "element" is unintelligible? Love your stuff btw, I'm sure you and Kane could discuss this topic productively in a call.

[@lanceindependent]

Pragmatism is the big underdog in philosophy. Maligned, misrepresented, and ignored, but ultimately the best view around.

[@atha5469]

Great review

[@MsJavaWolf]

I guess on my view of what a theory is, there could be no such thing as a true, unintelligible theory. The theory is not the same as the phenomenon itself, a theory, as I see it, is already a way to describe the phenomenon in a way that's in some way understandable. There could be many ways in which a theory could be understandable, maybe the theory is just an algorithm that we can have a computer run and we will never be able to picture it etc. If we say something like "There is a particle X and it does Y", where Y is unintelligible then first we should remove the part about behaviour Y and just say that there is particle X, so behaviour Y is no longer part of the theory. I would maybe go even further and say that Y never was part of any "theory", we thought it was but it wouldn't meet my view of what a theory is, kind of like sentences that may look like propositions but aren't. Edit: Well, you address most of this later, I'll still leave my comment up.

[@mind_onion]

10:12 Many people, especially philosophers of science, have mistaken views about how quantum mechanics works. Quantum mechanics as a theory is messy, confusing, and counter intuitive, and even people who have expertise and training in quantum mechanics have great difficulty, if not complete inability, explaining how it works to other people without resorting to purely mathematical descriptions. There's another quote, typically attributed to Einstein, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it." In this sense, no one understands quantum mechanics, anyone existing whose explanation could be made to the satisfaction of a six year old, has actually failed to understand quantum mechanics themselves. Many incorrect explanations and understandings of quantum mechanics fall into this latter category, so the Feynman quote simultaneously expresses the humility and confusion that is felt from someone who has proper training in quantum mechanics, while also warning against the all too common confident people who peddle incorrect understandings that "make sense".

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

@49:00 you mention, I think rightly, that your opponents tend to assume they can have their conclusion about the inability to analyze the concepts they insist are primitive/etc; what do you think would be their argument if forced to give one for that? Something about intuitions maybe?

[@lanceindependent]

I literally do not think they even think they need to argue for this. I think it's just some dogma they take as a given because nobody ever argues against it. That's probably true of many, at least. Doubtless there are Final Boss philosophers who'd have a lot more to say, but unfortunately I'm not talking to them. I wish I was, because I'd enjoy the challenge and might find out there's more to such claims than I realize. I doubt it, but it's possible. But yea, I think in practice whatever chain of defense they'd employ it'd fall back on some a prioristic appeal to how things "seem" to them. So I don't really think there's some big sophisticated position out there for me to tackle. I think it's just bad phenomenology.

[@СергейМакеев-ж2н]

@@lanceindependent I've also seen a lot of appeals to "you already implicitly agree with me" in various forms. Like they're just incapable of imagining somebody who doesn't share their mindset.

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

@@lanceindependent by “phenomenology” you mean something like studying the phenomena and not something like qualia, right? I first read that as , “it’s just as bad as phenomenology,” and I thought you might be making a comparison to how people argue for weird consciousness stuff, but then realized there’s no “as” I was thinking that a lot during the stream though..there seems to be some weird similarities between the sorts of claims made in moral philosophy and philosophy of mind - I suppose maybe I should expect the similarities?

[@lanceindependent]

​ They also routinely say things like "X is intuitive," without qualification. It's as though they think "intuitiveness" is a feature of intuitive propositions but not others, such that one discovers that something is intuitive, rather than it being a psychological fact that can vary from individual to another.

[@lanceindependent]

@@realSAPERE_AUDE I don't remember the context of what I said. Do you have a timestamp or could remind me?

[@oOneszaOo]

one problem with ever saying anything along the lines of "I don't get it" is that it suggests that you are the problem. it might be worth experimenting with formulations of the unintelligibility claim that clearly state "they don't get it" and "they are conceptually confused" and "they operate on unfounded dogma" without ever bringing in yourself. if they want to claim there's something wrong with you, then the onus is on them to prove it, but if they resort to strategies like "you lack the relevant intuitions" then they should get called out for sounding like a religion or a cult. at no point should your argument be about having to disambiguate a statement like "I don't get it". the point you want to get across after all is not that their explanations are not good enough for you, but rather that they are not good enough because they are so confused.

[@lanceindependent]

@@oOneszaOo Yes.

[@megg.3933]

Please try at least listen to a sentence till the end before jumping on commenting it. Really

[@lanceindependent]

This is my natural style of engaging with other people's content. If I don't jump on my thoughts when they occur to me I will quickly forget what I was going to say. It would undermine my reactions to videos to change the way I respond to them to something unnatural for me.

[@megg.3933]

@@lanceindependent your natural style of engaging fully disengaging with video you commenting to begin with, though. What is a point to react on mid sentence when you actually cannot even understand the thought being presented?? But you do you, you are right about that :)

[@lanceindependent]

@@megg.3933 I already watched the video more than once, and already did one review before having to stop due to technical issues. I can also judge for myself whether I've listened to enough to understand the thought being presented. Sometimes I'll be wrong, but second-guessing myself and constantly being self-conscious and self-monitoring is not going to help me.