This statement is false, no matter who you substitute for X and Y:
"Whatever X can articulate, Y can articulate with a higher degree of understanding"
There is always something.
Conversation
Replying to
How is it quantifying "higher degree"?
With a sufficiently limited definition, I don't see how that can be false - almost ever.
1
Replying to
Vague tweet on my part. It's quarter baked.
Let's say Y has a higher degree of understating than X, if Y is using X's conclusions as premises in a larger structure, to reach a conclusion that is beyond X.
2
Replying to
Thanks, but still not following.
Hypothetical: You are a nuclear physicist. I am a layperson with some knowledge of nuclear physics.
On average, how likely is it for any issue pertaining to nuclear physics, that you can't articulate it with a higher degree of understanding?
1
Replying to
"whatever X can articulate" is a universal quantifier. It's the set of arguments X can articulate.
Lay person knows than nuclear physicist about Dune novels, say.
1
1
Replying to
Oh, a *universal* quantifier. Now I get it.
Well, yeah, then you always have the fallback of a bunch of (presumptively) unique experiences, right? Pretty much impossible to beat that.
1
1
Replying to
Yeah, it's a little harmless as a formulation though, haha.
Do my other comments relate more for you now?
1
Replying to
Yes, but as you say, this point feels a bit toothless as relates to that.
I see what you're getting at, though. This problem seems to affect that subset of thinkers and academics who are not fatally aroused by their own ideas (i.e. the ones most qualified to the task, usually).
2
1
Replying to
Yeah. I think the impulse to defer, to trail off, gets in the away of some nuanced exploration of ideas.
1
1
Replying to
When it comes to expression, I don't even think nuance is critical. People are epistemically challenged and this needs to be respected.