The traditional solution was that the discourse about social design took only place among the relevant practitioners, and behind closed doors. This is no longer possible, because no idea about the social domain can be kept secret.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @HiFromMichaelV
Like in physics, you cannot hope to make much progress when you mostly debate with people that combine strong opinions with incomplete understanding, or that do not accept the norms of rational discourse. But I think that all questions need to be answered truthfully.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @HiFromMichaelV
How do you know those norms are the right ones?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @HiFromMichaelV
I think the norms of rational discourse are those that maximize the probability of a truthful outcome. This implies that you can question and develop them, but also that people have repeatedly figured them out throughout history.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @HiFromMichaelV
You can choose consistent norms (or, rather, reject norms that lead to inconsistencies)—but you can't choose ones that maximize that probability. If you want to go with historically useful norms, then you have to pick an era! Pre- or post-Whewell, e.g.?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @HiFromMichaelV
Why can I not? I would start my argument with Habermas, but probably have to re-read, because my mind is different from the one that read him. The classical specification of dialectic seems fine to me, it roughly describes the algorithm that I approximate within my own mind.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @HiFromMichaelV
“Seems fine” and “approximates what I do” don’t give guarantees (or even probabilities!) of having that property. No slur on you or Habermas, of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @HiFromMichaelV
Of course this does not constitute an argument. I am trying to cast a tentative net to get an idea of the shape of your argument while trying to make mine visible to you, for which twitter is probably unsuitable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The heuristics are those that increase exposure to variety and extremity. That, over time gives the best odds of covering the reachable possibility space. Encode in norms and practices.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The true question is a recursive one. What are the norms for norms for norms... A good heuristic is “what worked”, but it prevents discovery out of a local attractor.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Oh. I thought the question is: what are the world states that you have reason to expect to materialize by applying a given policy?
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.