# LMD Async Tutoring **URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933 **Category:** Tutoring **Created:** [April 23, 2024, 12:05am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933 "2024-04-23T00:05:39Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 966
### Author: ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot) #### Post date: [April 21, 2025, 7:15pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/966 "2025-04-21T19:15:56Z")
I reviewed your discussion at [Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024) Overall, your posts look good to me. I think you’re making progress, not stuck. I think more practice at that kind of discussion would benefit you. Did you enjoy writing those posts? If you have questions let me know. Or specific goals that you want criticism or suggestions for. One area where I noticed room for improvement is (sub-)topic selection. But I doubt that’s what you should focus attention on right now. One issue you might like to think about is whether omissions, incompleteness or something better being possible implies any errors. Just because there’s the possibility for improvement doesn’t necessarily obviously mean something is mistaken. There’s room for nuanced consideration there. > [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/12): > > I don’t understand what you mean here. I may not really know what context dropping is. Would you help me understand how what I’ve said is context dropping? I don’t think you dropped the context there. Context dropping means failing to take into account some relevant piece of context that you are or ought to be aware of, e.g. something someone already said earlier in the discussion. I think claims along the lines of “I think, therefore I am” should be introduced into the discussion by someone who thinks they’re relevant, not treated as premises that everyone should already agree with and always take into account. > [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/22): > > > [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/14): > > > > Does CR say that these statements are different? 1. It is a rock. 2. It has the identity of a rock. 3. It is certain that it is a rock. 4. It is true that it is a rock. To me, all four sentences say the same thing. > > I think 1, 2, and 4 mean the same thing. Or at least I think in most contexts 4 is implied when you state 1. I think they’re all different. Bringing up truth, identity or certainty is different than not doing that. > [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/25): > > Well I think truth is the commonsense concept of a statement’s correspondence with reality. Statement X is true if and only if X is the case in reality. This is an objective relationship. What about abstract statements? --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933)._