Ok, so you’re an OG of this side of the internet. Cool. Makes sense, you’re a good writer!
I see. I have no idea of how one would establish a million dollars of damages even if he did have that kind of money. What you say makes sense.
Plagiarism case where a famous social media guitarist was stealing from lesser known content creators and passing what he stole as his own/uncredited. Then he got caught and called out by another big youtuber.
If you, Elliot, could get someone with reach to show interest in your case maybe that would be helpful.
Any of you guys can approach those people, too.
1 Like
Regarding the music plagiarism video, it helps illustrate how the world isn’t very merit based. People make music that is good enough to be popular and they don’t get many fans. It gets more popular with the plagiarist because he does other things different besides the music. So the merit of the music is just one factor of many.
Using bad music is a disadvantage, which is why this guy is plagiarizing good music instead of making his own original but bad stuff. But bad quality being a disadvantage is very different than the attitude many people have that “if it was really good, it’d be popular; you’re not popular which proves you’re kinda bad”. Or “build it and they will come”.
One thing the plagiarist is doing different than some of his victims is being a pretty white male.
Online plagiarism is a widespread problem that causes a lot of people to stop sharing good work or not share it in the first place since they know this might happen. It makes the world worse for everyone:
Ok. Good to know. I wasn’t sure where you stood re contacting other people/third parties outside of philosophy forums re help on this issue.
The quote below in the section where it says Context. ET is talking about how hard hackethal started attacking him more recently:
I thought Hackethal had moved on, but then he started attacking me much more vigorously than before over old issues.
That sticks out to me because he didn’t attack you so much before but now he is doing it.
After you said in the article that Hackethal has a motive I thought this: It’s like he’s calculated something to attack you now. It’s like he’s planning something
Now I see a potential motive: it benefits him if it looks like my criticisms of Veritula are just revenge for his attacks on me.
I thought something similar intuitively. Like, Hackethal is trying to use the way things look like against you.
If people have a dismissive attitude to me, then he can get away with using my ideas without crediting me.
I don’t want to say that’s evil, but that’s so much planning to make a culture that doesn’t respect you. I don’t like it.
I wanted to say it’s evil cuz he’s intentionally hurting somebody and is making so many people go against a person. Like, that’s just bad. However, I think since he’s so conflicted about how he feels towards you, he thinks it’s ok to hurt you.
Creating a big, messy fight between us can distract people from his plagiarizing me in A Window on Intelligence: The Philosophy of People, Software, and Evolution – and Its Implications and doing even worse with Veritula.
What did ET do that was so bad for Hackethal to do all that planning? I think im asking that rhetorically
Obviously, there’s something going wrong here Hackethal. Sometimes, it’s not just the other people that are causing you the hurt. It could be a lack of understanding the situation that’s causing it. I think it’s too late to go back to that reasoning, but there’s a root cause here I think that’ll make things turn out better.
Quotes below are from the “Technically Not Plagiarism?” section of the article:
Hackethal is using my ideas but crediting them to a third party, which may be a way to avoid additional plagiarism accusations on a technicality.
It literally could be a way to do that. It’s such an oversight that there is no word for someone who takes other people’s ideas and doesn’t take credit for themselves.
Sometime after I accused his book of plagiarism, Hackethal “avoided Temple’s blog for years”. He says he was trying to prevent accidental plagiarism. It’s also a good way to prevent intentional plagiarism or misattributing my ideas to Popper.
So Hackethal was trying to prevent accidental plagiarism by not reading your blog for years, and that’s a good way to prevent accidental plagiarism?
But then he decided to start reading my essays again (he doesn’t say why). Then he started attacking me and made Veritula.
Hackethal then starts reading your essays again? Does he say that he’s reading them again on a blog or comment? Or is it cuz he made Veritula that it show he’s reading ET’s essays. The accidental plagiarism that’s happening shows he has been reading ET’s stuff again; it would be impossible for someone to start talking about a lot of the ideas ET has made and not having read them. ET hasn’t presented evidence about Hackethal plagiarizing yet, so I don’t know about my interpretation the last few sentences.
Quote below is from the section “Veritula Uses CF Ideas without Crediting CF”:
Blockquotes are from Hackethal’s How Does Veritula Work? (mirror). Italics are in the originals; bold is added for this article unless indicated.
The mirrors seem to be down for the above quote and the third blockquote you provided.
From the third blockquote:
Veritula therefore also enables you to hold irrational people accountable: if an idea has pending criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by revising it or addressing all pending criticisms.
That’s funny. I don’t think if someone held Hackethal accountable, Veritulla would allow that. Not funny funny but ironic.
Don’t worry about which ideas are better than others. […] Only go by whether an idea has outstanding criticisms. [source, mirror]
Kinda unsure about the following: I saw the source link and him telling this(the quote above) to a forum member. It’s not right to act as an authority for these kinds of ideas. He could be making big mistakes explaining them to others. I wonder how much mastery he has over these ideas.
Im unsure cuz i want to talk about CF ideas too at some point to the public or on social media, and maybe i could make the same mistake.
Both quoted links just loaded for me.
Talking about CF ideas is fine. Just say they’re from CF and admit you don’t know everything. It’s not that hard. You don’t need mastery to talk about ideas. Talking about them can be part of learning.
Oh ok, they’re probably not loading for me cuz I’m on Catalina OS and im using an old browser. Pic of me trying to load the first mirror provided:
When you say it’s not that hard, do you mean it’s not a very high level skill thing to credit CF and say I don’t know everything about it? Like, you don’t have to be a grand master at chess to talk about it and say you don’t know everything about it?
Ok, I like that cuz you don’t have to be some genius to talk about them. You can learn at the same time. Learning ideas is what I wanna do.
“It’s not that hard” is also a common expression in American English vernacular, and I think Elliot’s use here fits with that perfectly fine.
It’s typically said as a comment when someone seems to be overthinking a situation, accidentally making things overly complicated, etc.
Example:
“I want to ask her out, but what if she says no? What if she thinks I’m creepy? What if she never wants to talk to me again? What if it ruins our friendship?”
“Just ask if she wants to meet up for coffee, bro. If she says no, don’t be weird about it. It’s not that hard.”
–
Sometimes this expression can have a connotation of derision towards any amount of detailed consideration and analysis. So the expression can be used in a bad way. But that’s pretty much standard in popular culture, because some people have negative views of any serious analysis. It isn’t really the expression’s fault that people can misuse it.
And since people do also overthink and overcomplicate stuff sometimes, its core usage is still relevant and has a proper place.
Yeah, I think I was mixing up its core usage and its misuse automatically. Im so used to thinking that the misuse way is the default way people use. It’s hard to tell which one they’re conveying, like idk if i should actually not overthink something or do more detailed analysis. It’s hard to answer tht.
Even then when someone is already overthinking something, they’re at a place where they have a lot of conflicting viewpoints. I don’t think they should just shut them off(i dont think anyone here is saying do this). Like, it will take some work to see that they’re not really necessary to do their goal. Idk how to think about this. I think there’s just a deep error of why one is making things over-complicated.
I am not sure I totally agree. But I may be misunderstanding you.
It kind of sounds like you’re saying if someone is overthinking something, that means they have many conflicting ideas that must be resolved in order to proceed. But to resolve those conflicting ideas they presumably will need to think about them. So they should continue thinking.
Which kinda sounds like the proposed solution to overthinking is to just overthink even more. I’m not too sure about that. I think that could be true sometimes, but if so I think it may be wrong to say such a person was overthinking. Maybe their problem was something else, and the intense thinking they needed to do was necessary and good. Definitionally, overthinking implies overdoing it, doing too much, doing more than is necessary.
I do think overthinking is a real thing that happens and is distinct from situations where you genuinely need to think a lot to resolve contradictory ideas.
I do agree with this, I think. But in cases of actual overthinking, the solution probably isn’t to keep thinking about the conflicting ideas that you’re currently overthinking. My guess is the solution is gonna involve stuff like pausing the chains of thought that are overthinking, taking a step back, and thinking about something else. Maybe the root cause of the overthinking is not the topic you are overthinking about, it’s some other thing that has caused your anxiety to spike (and then you overthink stuff due to high anxiety.)
In such cases it might actually be a good idea for them to “shut them off” — with “them” referring to the overly complicated thought chains. Shutting them off isn’t the solution per se, but it may be a necessary step prior to looking for a solution.
I think they shouldn’t think about them, but think about why they should think about them or not. Like, that’s a conflict in itself, and it happens when they notice they’re overthinking.
Yeah, I think it’s contradictory to say that one should think more about the things they’re thinking of, and that at that point they’re overthinking. Like, are they overdoing it or are they not? I wrote the last sentence after reading your sentence about what overthinking’s definition implies. I like that implication.
Ok, I agree, like I think the person overthinking those ideas is already overdoing it, and more thinking about them won’t help.
Ok, that makes the problem simpler it seems. Like if the cause of the overthinking is the thing that has spiked your anxiety to overthink then that’s important to think about.
I like phrasing them as overly complicated thought chains more than conflicting ideas, cuz we’re identifying what the thoughts are correctly. I think the hard part is identifying if the chains of thought are overly complicated or something one needs to do intense thinking on. That’s the conflict I think could be there.
Like, when I talked to ET earlier about crediting CF(link to convo) and saying one doesn’t know all about the ideas, I thought it was gonna be kinda hard to do that cuz I have slightly different goals about sharing CF. I want to try to present myself(on social media) in a way as I do know about them, like at least talk about the parts i do know. Idk, I just think sometimes that people don’t respect that you don’t know something or like make mistakes, and that it makes you seem less socially important cuz of that. I don’t know what to think about all that
I got a question about the following quotes:
Quote is from Hackethal’s How Does Veritula Work?:
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
Following quote is from Introduction to Critical Fallibilism:
CF says all ideas should be evaluated in a digital (specifically binary) way as non-refuted (has no known errors) or refuted (has a known error).
Is it a good way to see ideas as having pending criticisms or no pending criticisms? Cuz before I used to think refuted actually mean something else, like their refutation was final and it was for sure that the idea has an error. I didn’t know the error for the idea was pending.
He’s incorrectly using the term “pending”, which is confusing. The issue is: are there non-refuted decisive criticisms of the idea or not? If a criticism is itself refuted then it doesn’t refute anything.
From my CF intro that you linked:
All ideas, including criticisms we accept, are held tentatively. That’s a CR idea which means we know we’re fallible and might have to revise our views in the future when we think of new ideas or get new evidence.
Idk how Hackethal is using the term pending incorrectly. Some ideas about how he’s using the term pending incorrectly are:
-
He’s already saying that the criticism is wrong in a way by saying it’s pending. Like, is it wrong or not?
-
Saying that the criticism is pending already says that the criticism is inherently wrong to accept.
-
Saying the criticism is pending says it’s awaiting a decision to be rejected or not. Why is it awaiting a decision?
idk how him using the term pending is confusing. I think it’s making the issue hard to understand I think. Here’s some ideas about how using the term “pending” is confusing according to some dictionaries:
According to MW’s definition of pending:
not yet decided : being in continuance
- so is the criticism not decided to be a criticism or not? Why is it pending? What’s pending? For us to look at it? Why?
- What’s not decided about the criticism?
- If we’re using the “being in continuance” def then what is there to push back later? What are we later trying to decide? Is it that maybe it’ll be wrong in the future and we don’t know? We don’t know so i don’t think the criticism is pending.
- Is the criticism pending because you disagree with it? How do you disagree with it?
According to Oxford Languages’ definition of pending:
awaiting decision or settlement.
- Is the criticism awaiting a decision?
- Are both people talking about the idea awaiting a decision?
- What’s awaiting a decision?
- If the criticism is awaiting a decision then what is it for? For it to be proven wrong? What if you don’t have one yet?
- If the criticism is awaiting a decision then is it for it to be criticized? Is there something wrong with the criticism or not?
From ET’s CF intro:
so there are ideas that we don’t accept that are held tentatively too? Also, when we accept an idea it’s held tentatively. I gotta really look up tentatively.
So all ideas being held tentatively means we know we’re fallible and might have to revise our views in the future.
So what I would say to my quote above is that criticisms are ideas and ideas are held tentatively. Criticisms being held tentatively means that we know we’re fallible and that we might have to revise the criticism in the future. I say the last sentence if views = ideas = criticisms.
From your earlier post:
So that doesn’t actually make sense. Pending means awaiting decision. A pending criticism would be a criticism that you haven’t evaluated yet: you haven’t decided whether it refutes the idea yet.
If an idea has a criticism that was decisive, and refuted the idea (tentatively), that would not be a pending criticism. That would just be a decisive criticism (that hasn’t been refuted by a counter-argument).
If an idea has no pending criticisms, that just means you already evaluated all criticisms of it. There could be a bunch of refutations: they are no longer pending because you already evaluated them as successful refutations.
So what Hackethal is saying here doesn’t make sense. He is saying it is rational to accept ideas with no pending criticisms and irrational to reject them. But logically that would mean that you should accept ideas with decisive criticisms that you have already decided are decisive and refute the idea, since those are no longer pending criticisms.
It looks like he used the term “pending criticism” to mean “non-refuted criticism”, which isn’t what it means.
4 Likes
It seems that a criticism being decisive is different from it refuting the idea.
So if a criticism is decisive, that means you evaluated it?
So if a criticism is decisive and it refuted an idea that means you evaluated it. It’s evaluated as a successful refutation. If you evaluate all criticisms of an idea as successful refutations then there’s no more pending criticisms.
I think I see that the decision that’s being awaited for the criticism is you evaluating it.
So Hackethal is saying if the criticism is not pending then it’s non refuted or has been addressed. However, the meaning of pending says that the idea isn’t awaiting for it be true or false. What’s being awaited is for the decision to be made for the idea to be true or false. An idea that either has a decisive criticism or a criticism has been refuted no longer have pending criticisms. One scenario the idea is true and in the other the idea is false. Hackethal says it’s ok to accept the idea in both scenarios. That’s when the correct meaning of the word “pending” is used.
I think my explanation came out a little awkward so im ok with getting feedback
edit 1: in the second to last paragraph, in the 4th sentence, I meant to say ***a criticism that has been refuted ***