@EdmundGriffiths This seems to belong into the mechanics of your Logic of Belief Systems.https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1052626806950518784 …
-
-
Replying to @zerology
Hmmm there's an element of truth to it, although of course it's their most distinctive ideas rather than their worst. To put it another way: how much emotional energy are you going to put into arguing for a position that everyone you've ever heard of already agrees with?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EdmundGriffiths
I understand
@Plinz hint that bad ideas are most suitable as distinction. So nobody else has them by chance.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Not sure there's much basis for that. In any event I wouldn't want to introduce "badness" of ideas as an analytical criterion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EdmundGriffiths @zerology
I found it hard to express it well in a tweet. I did not mean "bad" in the ethical sense, but in the sense of "very hard to justify to a neutral party based on generally known facts and universally acceptable reasoning".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Ok, but it's not very easy to identify which beliefs meet that test. I'm not sure I can tell which of the things I believe are least convincing to a hypothetical neutral observer; much easier to tell which are most distinctive, ie actually disbelieved by people I encounter
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Have you heard about the political Turing test? The idea is that you should be able to represent the ideas of your political opponents well enough to have them agree. Most people fail that test, because they assume that their opponents must be confused or deliberately evil.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.