In Brandomian inferentialism (a successor to Speech Act theory via Rorty) a statement is locally “true/correct” if the speaker can justify it in the space of reasons recognized by their community.
A statement is locally “true/correct” if the speaker can justify it in the space of reasons recognized by their community.
Science is an exceptional domain whose matters have a common community across humanity.
Most communities do not extend across humanity, and so have no reason to share common truths.
All those who claim to speak "the truth" have physics envy, not just social scientists...
This is like Michael Scott realizing the real game being played by sociopaths and wondering if he should tell the normies, who have been in the game all along.
"the way I entrained my mind was an adaptive compensation for my lack of appliied skill in areas that come naturally to most others"
many such cases
now, the next question is, what does it take to get to a dynamic where people do not excessively or unwisely punish the each other from different sides of those filters?
> People realise that politicians lie, that they must lie, and why they must lie. Everyone realises this, and everyone realises that everyone realises this.
OR... everyone realizes that hyperstition creates truth from where it didn't exist and gets people to coordinate, and this means that even the formerly truth-obsessed quokkas will now expect hyperstition to work, and everyone now knows that everyone expects hyperstition to work and that causes hyperstition to ALWAYS work and now politicians BECOME INFINITELY POWERFUL?!?!
Lovely thought experiment but I think it's gated at the start. It seems like people at large will fall in very many explanations before they fall into "everyone realizes that hyperstition creates truth", which breaks it.
so my business is discerning truth, as in truthful statements, and once you really dig down, lying is so so complicated.
Like, a person can say something that they believe to be true, even if many many other people are really convinced it's not. Is that a lie?
Even if they know lots of people think they are wrong.
If they have seen the evidence that they are wrong.
But they still believe it!
If they say something they are very confident about but is demonstrably false, is that a lie?
Or what about statements that are just fuzzy.
Like what if two politicians are in a giant battle but they don't want to talk about it.
If a reporter asks and they say something like, "We have a long relationship and it's been productive."
That's evasive. Is it a lie?
The shades here are just endless.
The examples go on and on when you dig in.
What is "lying" is just... tough to discern.
There's this idea a lot of people have where it's binary. Is it a lie or is it not.
But that's just not true.
Agreed. It's very nuanced and you need lots of distinctions depending on how precisely you're trying to catch the phenomenon (phenomena)
Clearly you've never hung out with people who say to meet at 8 and don't all get there till 9:30. Your head would explode
In Brandomian inferentialism (a successor to Speech Act theory via Rorty) a statement is locally “true/correct” if the speaker can justify it in the space of reasons recognized by their community.
A statement is locally “true/correct” if the speaker can justify it in the space of reasons recognized by their community.
Science is an exceptional domain whose matters have a common community across humanity.
Most communities do not extend across humanity, and so have no reason to share common truths.
All those who claim to speak "the truth" have physics envy, not just social scientists...
This is like Michael Scott realizing the real game being played by sociopaths and wondering if he should tell the normies, who have been in the game all along.
"the way I entrained my mind was an adaptive compensation for my lack of appliied skill in areas that come naturally to most others"
many such cases
now, the next question is, what does it take to get to a dynamic where people do not excessively or unwisely punish the each other from different sides of those filters?
Idk but I'll happily read that blog post when you write it! :D
> People realise that politicians lie, that they must lie, and why they must lie. Everyone realises this, and everyone realises that everyone realises this.
OR... everyone realizes that hyperstition creates truth from where it didn't exist and gets people to coordinate, and this means that even the formerly truth-obsessed quokkas will now expect hyperstition to work, and everyone now knows that everyone expects hyperstition to work and that causes hyperstition to ALWAYS work and now politicians BECOME INFINITELY POWERFUL?!?!
Lovely thought experiment but I think it's gated at the start. It seems like people at large will fall in very many explanations before they fall into "everyone realizes that hyperstition creates truth", which breaks it.
That's what the child is for!
to point out that the hyperstition isn't wearing any clothes