I think I could’ve got a lot more brainstorm items on the list by listing types of plants i knew, like vegetables or fruits or tree/wood species, but I steered away from doing that whenever I started doing that because I wanted to think of other less obvious things.
notes/working:
there is another tendency
- this tendency contributes to the acceptance of the myth
- this tendency deserves careful scrutiny
- this tendency is connected with cultural/historical relativism
- relativism’s beginnings may perhaps be discerned in Herodotus
Herodotus was a rare mindHerodotus’s mind seemed to have been broadened by travelimplied: most people’s minds aren’t broadened by travel- implied: the relevant thing about travel in this context is culture clash
At first he would’ve been shocked by the foreign customs of the Middle East- But he learned to respect their customs
- he learned to look at some of their customs critically
- he learned to regard other customs as the result of historical accident
- he learned to be tolerant of these differences in culture
- he learned to view his country’s customs through foreign eyes
- This tolerant and critical attitude is healthy
- This attitude can lead to relativism
- Implied: relativism is false, and the wrong conclusion to draw from the attitude
- (expansion on why conclusion is wrong) It shouldn’t lead to relativism because the fact that people have different ideas (including different ideas for how to judge ideas) doesn’t mean that there are no true ideas including true ideas for how to judge ideas. It’s a non sequitur.
- Relativism is the view that there is no objective truth
- Relativism would mean there is a truth for each country or culture
- (expansion) Relativism’s view is therefore that no objective standards for comparing the customs of different countries exist. Each can only judge relative to his own standards, which are merely arbitrary.
themes:
tendency connected with relativism
relativism
attitude of tolerance leading to relativism
tendency to contribute to myth
attitude of herodotus is healthy, but it can lead to relativism
paraphrase:
Another tendency contributing to the myth is to conclude from the experience of culture clash a form of cultural or historical relativism. Like Herodotus, who in Ancient times travelled and learnt of the different customs of his neighbours, we might learn to form a tolerant yet critical attitude towards our customs and theirs. But we shouldn’t conclude from these differences that there are no objective standards for comparing cultures.
This took over 20 minutes just to come up with this paraphrase. My brainstorm didn’t seem to be of much help. It was a bit overwhelming having so many things. There were lots that seemed to be relevant. I could
From The Myth of the Framework by Karl Popper:
It is now fifty years since I arrived at a view very similar to the myth of the framework – and I not only arrived at it but at once went beyond it. It was during the great and heated discussions after the First World War that I found out how difficult it was to get anywhere with people living in a closed framework – I mean people like the Marxists, the Freudians, and the Adlerians. None of them could ever be shaken in his adopted view of the world. Every argument against their framework was interpreted by them so as to fit into it. And if this turned out to be difficult, then it was always possible to psychoanalyse or socioanalyse the arguer: criticism of Marxian ideas was due to class prejudice, criticism of Freudian ideas was due to repression, and criticism of Adlerian ideas was due to the urge to prove your superiority, an urge which was due to an attempt to compensate for a feeling of inferiority.
- popper accepted a view similar to the myth fifty years ago
- popper arrived at it himself seemingly?
- once he accepted it, he then went beyond it
- (my thoughts) It’s not clear how, but perhaps he went beyond it after considering the limitations that a self-protecting framework must have?
- after WWI, he had heated discussions with people in closed frameworks
- by people in closed frameworks he means Marxists, Freudians, and Adlerians
- he found these discussions difficult
- none of them could have their views changed
- They interpreted arguments against their framework as fitting into it
- If they couldn’t, they could use their theories to discredit the ideas of the arguer
- (my thoughts on that) these frameworks included features that allowed them to ignore disagreement. They included epistemological features about how to judge ideas that weren’t to do with the content of the ideas of the arguer, but of alleged ulterior motives of the arguer, like class prejudice, repression, or superiority/inferiority complexes. These epistemological features can immunise their frameworks from much criticism
paraphrase:
Popper once accepted at the myth of the framework but soon rejected it. In discussions with Marxists, Freudians, and Adlerians after WWI, Popper discovered that their frameworks protected them from having to change their minds.
good. that’s a big list.
new brainstorming prompt: differences between plants, animals and fungi
one thing you might try is putting a ? on the end of ones where you’re unsure if they’re true. that might help you make more speculative guesses.
I’ll paraphrase:
Another tendency which contributes to the myth of the framework is cultural relativism. Herodotus travelled, encountered strange customs, and learned to respect them. He even acquired the ability to see his own country as foreigners do. This is mostly good but can lead to thinking each culture has its own separate truth.
Yes, lots are relevant. My paraphrase definitely omits relevant information that could be useful in some context. But did I omit anything that strikes you as essential?
I noticed that your paraphrase departed from the original text a lot more than you usually do, and did more rewriting. But you had difficulty with it. So I tried doing a more basic paraphrase myself. You’ll see I left in some of Popper’s wordings and tried to keep things simple and go through his text, in order, and just include enough to get the main point across. If you analyze my version, you may be able to kind of see how I made it and figure out the method enough to use it yourself.
Your paraphrase is OK. You kept it more simple and basic than with the previous one, and that worked fine.
I had a comment on Popper’s story. It sounds like he had access to people who were willing to discuss repeatedly, but whose minds were difficult to change. So he could keep trying different arguments and questions, and get responses, but he wasn’t persuading them, and frameworks were a relevant factor.
I think I have some experience with what Popper is talking about, but my recent experience is different than that. I make a lot more meta arguments (including ones that reframe debate more cooperatively as joint truth seeking) which are harder to dismiss with the tactics Popper was running into. I think one of the results is that fewer people want to discuss. When their regular tactics don’t work well, a common reaction is to avoid discussion. I suspect they only were open to debate when they felt reasonably confident about not losing and not having to change their minds.
2 Likes
No I don’t think so.
A thing that I’m unsure about with your one (and mine) is if the tendency Popper means is relativism, because he says that it’s connected with relativism. That’s why mine says that it’s the tendency to conclude from culture clash a form of relativism. Maybe that doesn’t matter too much. I think figuring out that kind of thing was what was holding me up in that paragraph and made it take time.
So am I right that the paraphrase shows evidence that I understood it well (departed from the text more, more rewriting), and it was interesting to hear that I had difficulty with it?
Yeah okay, I think I can see how you did that. That’s helpful. Maybe if I’m getting stuck, I’ll try something like that and see if it’s easier.
No. I thought that paraphrase was worse than others.
1 Like
oh cool, I’m glad I clarified haha
plants have roots
plants have leaves
plants use photosynthesis
plants are green mostly
animals have brains
some animals can have fur
plants and fungi can’t move easily like animals
fungi decompose plants and animals
some animals have feet, eyes, ears, limbs
fungi grows in the dark
fungi have more gametes than plants and animals? (isogametes?)
animals can take care of their young
Humans are animals
all are eaten by humans
animals have fungi living on them (skin yeasts)
They require different methods of preparing them for food?
Some fungi is poisonous?
Animals are mobile, plants and fungi grow in one spot
I don’t know if there are fungi in the oceans? Surely they could, but I don’t know of any
fungi and plants reproduce by making fruiting parts
10mins
a lot less! It was harder for me
1 Like
From On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance by Karl Popper:
The problem which I wish to examine afresh in this lecture, and which I hope not only to examine but to solve, may perhaps be described as an aspect of the old quarrel between the British and the Continental schools of philosophy—the quarrel between the classical empiricism of Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Mill, and the classical rationalism or intellectualism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. In this quarrel the British school insisted that the ultimate source of all knowledge was observation, while the Continental school insisted that it was the intellectual intuition of clear and distinct ideas.
wish to examine a problem
wish also to solve a problem
problem may be described as an aspect of the debate between British classical empircism and Continental classical intellectualism
British school insists the source of knowledge was observation
Contental school insted that it was intellectual intution of clear and distinct ideas
the problem is the source of knoweldge
paraphrase:
In this Lecture, Popper wishes to examine and solve the old problem of the source of knowledge. Historically, the British school insisted the answer was observation, and the Continental school insisted that it was intellectual intuitition.
1 Like
that’s good.
brainstorming prompt: pasta
10 minute brainstorm:
bolognaise
carbonara
pesto
napoli
a al norma
cheese
basil
oregano
tomato
eggplant
egg
cream
cracked pepper
olive oil
spaghetti
penne
rigatoni
angel hair
fettucine
chilli
chilli oil
chilli flakes
salty water
boiling water
pasta water
pasta bake
lasagne
multiple cheeses
italian classic
fresh herbs
spinning fork
fresh pasta or dry pasta
handmade
cheap meal
storing sauce in the freezer for later
comfort food
lots of carbs
easy to make
kids like it
growing your own basil
making pesto
pine nuts
parmagiana
pizza
italian herbs
national dish
lots of variety
tomatoes are a new world food
pasta maker
lady and the tramp eating spaghetti
meatballs
putting pasta in soup
economical meal
dry pasta stores for ages
not healthy to eat all the time
passata
pasta recipes
keeping some pasta water for the sauce
serving pasta on a big plate to share
egg pasta
flying spaghetti monster
colander
fresh ingredients
fancy restaurants
checkered table cloths
spinning your spaghetti onto your fork with a spoon
dont get sauce on your clothes
wear a napkin
how long has pasta existed?
did pasta exist before italians had tomatoes? ~1500AD?
1 Like
Brainstorming prompt: how to make money investing
10 mins:
read investing books
buy bitcoin lol
get low fee index fund
learn things about the companies you’re invested in
don’t just extrapolate from past data
learn about the industry and competitors
know about taxes and legal stuff
talk to people who have made money investing
be careful about all the scammers and fakers
learn to be wise
study philosophy so you can make good decisions
learn about statistics
learn that induction is false and lots of people might suggest you just look at past data
learn about probablity and think about how it applies or not
read about stock markets
learn why stocks crash
what is a bull market?
what is a bear market?
learn about gold
learn about what money is
study some economics
be careful
hedge your investments
get a portfolio
hire a secretary?
fake it till you make it
learn to see through peoples bullshit
learn about foreign currencies
learn about markets
learn about capital goods
study different investment strategies
consider your investment goals
how old are you and how risky should you be investing at your age
get a knowledge of the things you’re investing in, and the market for them
be able to quickly identify if the things are fake
learn how to maintain the things yourself
hedge against inflation with collectables, or other tangible things
bitcoin is worth a lot more than it was
learn about how crypto works first
don’t buy into hype
don’t follow herds
think for yourself
become smart
understand that your money is important
losing millions of dollars is bad
be honest
have good values
1 Like
Excerpt from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
Our problem belongs to the theory of knowledge, or to epistemology, reputed to be the most abstract and remote and altogether irrelevant region of pure philosophy. Hume, for example, one of the greatest thinkers in the field, predicted that, because of the remoteness and abstractness and practical irrelevance of some of his results, none of his readers would believe in them for more than an hour.
problem belongs to epistemology
implied: the problem is the source of knowledge
epistemology is the theory of knowledge
epistemology has reputation of the most abstract, remote, and irrelevant part of philosophy
For that reason, Hume predicted none of his readers would believe his results for more than an hour
hume was one of the greatest epistemologists
paraphrase:
The problem of the source of knowledge belongs to the field of epistemology. Epistemology is believed to be the most abstract and practically irrelevant field of philosophy.
1 Like
Excerpt from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
Russell’s views are of course disputed. Some recent philosophers have developed a doctrine of the essential impotence and practical irrelevance of all genuine philosophy, and thus, one can assume, of epistemology. Philosophy, they say, cannot by its very nature have any significant consequences, and so it can influence neither science nor politics. But I think that ideas are dangerous and powerful things, and that even philosophers have sometimes produced ideas. Indeed, I do not doubt that this new doctrine of the impotence of all philosophy is amply refuted by the facts.
The view that epistemology and philosophy is of practical importance is disputed. But Popper thinks ideas are dangerous and powerful, and that the doctrine that philosophy is impotent is false.
Excerpt from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
The situation is really very simple. The belief of a liberal—the belief in the possibility of a rule of law, of equal justice, of fundamental rights, and a free society—can easily survive the recognition that judges are not omniscient and may make mistakes about facts and that, in practice, absolute justice is never fully realized in any particular legal case. But the belief in the possibility of a rule of law, of justice, and of freedom, can hardly survive the acceptance of an epistemology which teaches that there are no objective facts; not merely in this particular case, but in any other case; and that the judge cannot have made a factual mistake because he can no more be wrong about the facts than he can be right.
The belief in the possibility of a liberal, lawful, free society can survive the recognition that our judges are fallible. But this belief cannot survive an epistemology which teaches that there is no truth for judges to be right or wrong about.
1 Like
Excerpt from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
The great movement of liberation which started in the Renaissance and led through the many vicissitudes of the reformation and the religious and revolutionary wars to the free societies in which the English-speaking peoples are privileged to live, this movement was inspired throughout by an unparalleled epistemological optimism: by a most optimistic view of man’s power to discern truth and to acquire knowledge.
There was a movement
a movement of liberation
this movement started in the renaissance
this movement led through religious reformation and war
it lead eventually to the free English speaking societies
this movement was inspired throughout by an epistemological optimism
which is, an optimistic view of man’s power to acquire knowledge
The liberating movement which started in the renaissance and led to the free English-speaking societies we have today, was inspired by an epistemological optimism regarding man’s capacity for knowledge.
1 Like
Brainstorming prompts:
- How to make great pasta
- Upsides of index funds
- Downsides of index funds
- Child wants to stay at a store longer but it’s closing time
- Child wants to stay at a park longer than parent does
- Solving global warming
- Is global warming a real concern?
- Upsides of plastics
- Downsides of plastics
- Upsides of pesticides
- Downsides of pesticides
- Critical Fallibilism epistemology
Try 5min each, but you can go longer if you feel like it (e.g. more answers are flowing easily and you don’t want to stop in the middle, or you feel like you didn’t come up with enough yet and want to consider more).
Feel free to spread these out over several days. They aren’t meant for one study session.
When brainstorming pros and cons of something (or similar things like upsides and downsides), you can work on both lists at the same time, or work on them one at a time, or both. It can work well to do each list alone initially, then once it’s harder to add to each list you start working on both at the same time while thinking about the issue more deeply. As a loose rule of thumb, when doing them separately, it’s better to start with pros than cons.
How to make great pasta - 5 mins
fresh ingredients
patience
imported italian passata
deli proscuitto
egg pasta
pecorino romano
use a large pot for boiling pasta
if making bolognaise, cook meat seperately and render
reduce sauce for two hours adding beef stock as you go
use fresh basil, picked to serve
find out what the best cheese is. Try some samples from the deli
dont overcook the pasta
same some salty pasta water for mixing in the sauce
find a good olive oil. Buy a few different ones in small quantities to find your favourite
find good recipes. Some italian towns have official recipes for the specialty dish
mix olive oil with the pasta once it’s drained
serve hot
grate cheese directly on top
Child wants to stay at a store longer but it’s closing time - 5 mins
try to explain that it’s closing
make plans to come back soon
tell them that the people that work they have to get home to their families
see if you can browse things they have online when you get home
ask them why they want to stay
make sure you go to a store your kid might like with more time to spare, like not right by closing time.
lie to your kid (that there is some danger and you have to leave)
get angry at them
put your foot down
pick them up and carry them out
raise your voice
tell them you’ll punish them if they don’t do what you want
Buy them something they like from the store if they’ll leave
1 Like