Something having a reason to fail is very similar to a criticism. Criticisms say why an idea/action/plan will fail at a goal/purpose/etc. An idea could be that “something” and it has reason it’ll fail cuz of the criticism.
I think you could say the quote above but with criticisms. Like, if an idea has a criticism then that’s at least one reason it’ll fail. If it doesn’t have a criticism then it has zero reasons it’ll fail?.. Can an idea have that reason and it’s not cuz of a criticism?
That’s different than doing many improvements in mainstream epistemology. Like, you could keep slightly improving stuff there, but with CF you’re going the opposite direction of the number line, you could aim for an idea with zero errors. In the mainstream view, you could go for infinite improvements while, in CF, you could go for 0 errors. 0 is way closer to something countable than infinity is. It’s easier to deal with something with small amounts like 0-10.
Defensive means failure-causing. Thats a kind of errors. There’s probably other kinds of errros that dont cause failure. They probably do something else. We care about the errors causing failure. I havent heard of defensive errors before; thats new to me.
“Things work” I think means achieving the goal. If an idea or plan completes the goal then it works. If there are no defensive errors then there’s no problem the idea’s gonna work. If a product line works at making bags of chips, then it has no defensive errors.
I think the og quote about defensive errors is meant to say decisive errors. Decisive would make more sense cuz the parentheses is defining a term I think. Decisive means it’s failure causing. If an error causes failure at the goal then it’s decisive not defensive. Defensive means something else I think. Also, you can see that the next sentence explains more stuff about decisive errors:
Since we’re talking about decisive errors and them causing failure, now if you at least one decisive error, a thing won’t work.
Does knowledge being imperfect mean that that error can be wrong and the thing actually works? That doesnt make much sense to me cuz wouldnt the thing end up working anyways? The fact it’s failing doesnt mean the error is wrong? Can errors be wrong? Idk but I think criticisms can be.
How is our knowledge being imperfect related to the topic, sentence, finding errors, or us knowing a thing won’t work? I think it’s related to us knowing things as best we could. If it’s that then it’s related to about us knowing stuff. Does that include finding an error? If you find an error then you can know that a thing won’t work.
I think knowledge being imperfect doesn’t mean it’s not useful info. Maybe it makes an error somewhere else and we dont know? Like, at another goal. Not too sure but it makes me think about finding ways an idea can be wrong in the future. We don’t know that yet so it’s the best we know.
I think this is related to knowledge being imperfect. The fact that the thing might not work means there could still be failure. There’s knowledge involved somewhere when you find no errors. It’s probably with the knowledge that you found no errors in. If you find no errors then the idea is knowledge? The thing is working, no? When the thing works is that after you actually try the thing out? Not too sure about this line of discussion.
Finding errors is a part of knowledge right? How do you know an error is there or not? That’s knowledge about errors. That stuff could be imperfect too. Not too sure about all this
Why “might” the thing work? There’s no guarantees a thing will work? Even after you found no errors. It’s like you don’t know if a an issue will come up. I think this stuff is related to the impact of a solution. Like, how do you know a solution will even work? Impact of a solution is from Judging and Fixing Your Own Errors :
Now after looking at this quote again, I see there’s a “but”. That’s contrasting two ideas. You could think that cuz knowledge is imperfect, it’s hard to know that a thing won’t work. Finding an error seems to be something that still works in spite of knowledge being imperfect.
There seems to be an asymmetry here. Like, finding an error is different then finding no error. I thought maybe the thing will work when you find no errors not that it “might” work. I think as best we know, we still don’t know if a think will for sure work. Idk.
You could understand this sentence better using the last two sentences:
Why would you use something that we know won’t work? If you find no errors in something then that thing might work. I think it’d be nice to try it out. You could run into another error or it might work. If you run into another error then I think you learned more.
If a thing where we find errors works then I don’t think we get the goal it works for. That or there’s probably a mistake about how we found that error. Idk
Also, I think it makes sense that we’re better off cuz it’s not failing at goals we have. Not too sure tho.
This sentence is connected to the last. Like, even tho the quote above is true, we’re still better off to use ideas where we find no errors. Why? I think it’s cuz if we do find errors in something that means something underlying may be causing them. You might not just be failing at the goal at hand but also at other things…Idk how that has to do with using things with no errors.
I think the quote presents problems with both approaches. Like, since we’re fallible then we could be wrong about things having known or no known errors. You could be wrong about an error you found or about a thing having no errors. Why is it better to use something with no errors?
If you use something that has errors then there are downsides to that. You’re literally failing at the goal there. What are some real life examples of things with known errors? Are there upsides to using those? I think if you fix use something with errors, that’s more effort than using a thing that might work.
Edit: Last sentence is supposed to only say “fix” not “use”.
Is using the knowledge we have a thing with no known errors? Knowledge is useful info so it worked at something. If it didn’t then it’d just be information. I think that’s why we have to use it…I’m not too sure here.
What does “do our best” mean? That’s like even tho we may be mistaken about stuff we should still find the best way to do stuff. Idk I don’t think it means like keep trying hard even tho you might fail. That sounds wrong cuz you can keep trying and stay doing stuff the wrong way. Oh wait I’m thinking about the phrase ‘try your best’.
Is an idea equal to a plan? Was I too specific using the word “idea” in the question? Can a part of a plan equal an idea? Those are things with more than one decisive error. Does a plan have more than one decisive error is a part has >1 error? The plan literally has those decisive errors.
The quote above makes sense cuz if you fix a decisive error and you’re plan still doesn’t work then you got another error causing failure. That’s for sure if you actually fixed a decisive error and there’s more. You could have the situation where you don’t fix any decisive errors and there’s only one. You could just be improving stuff and never get to the goal. This is why I don’t like the stay positive mentality cuz you could be ignoring decisive errors.
Edit: The last question of the second paragraph is supposed to say “if” not “is”.
Edit 2: I meant first paragraph not second. I’m not including the quote as a paragraph.
Yeah, I don’t even think perfectionists know about decisive errors. Maybe they have some sort of intuition about it, but is that helping them not improve stuff that’s pointless? I think I’m a perfectionist and it’s hard to know that if what I’m improving is what’s needed. Even tho I’m kind of aware about decisive errors, I still don’t know if what I’m improving is one or not. It’s hard to know when to stop.
Also, I think that common part about perfectionism is like that cuz people may not know what is a decisive error, their epistemology needs some work, or they’re identifying stuff incorrectly as a mistake. So if you work on your epistemology then that could help with the perfectionism. You could know what’s a decisive error, refocus your improving efforts elsewhere, or really get a better understanding of your perfectionism. Like, you have a better point of view to ask why do you want to improve stuff so much. Is part of it irrational or rational? You could judge it better.
I kind of see that common part, like improving stuff that’s not decisive errors. People are improving stuff but they’re not decisive errors. Also, that can be endless? I think that makes sense cuz a perfectionist can improve one thing and another. They keep seeing one mistake and then another I think. They can see a new mistake after they fixed one. Maybe they have a list of a bunch of things that they want to improve. That list keeps growing I bet.
The question in the quote above shows that people don’t know where to stop. What does “where” mean tho? Is that like where in the process of improving stuff they should stop? Like, stop after improving a thing. Or stop after improving three things.
Something tells me that perfectionists don’t have a good sense of achieving the goal. That’s cuz if you achieved the goal then you probably knew what to improve. You found the bottleneck or decisive error and fixed it so you can complete your project. They don’t know where to stop cuz they don’t know where to focus their efforts to do the goal. Like, they could improve one thing but what are they trying to accomplish?
I think not knowing what’s a decisive error and not stopping is related to writing on the forum. Like, if you’re goal is to keep improving your writing then I think if you focus more time on fixing mistakes then it might get in the way of writing. Is constantly editing stuff perfectionism? Is it the kind of perfectionism where you don’t know what’s a decisive error?
Oh ok, I see that the stuff a perfectionist is improving is stuff that’s good enough. I was thinking that it wasn’t good at all, like who knows how good it is. I just don’t know how good the thing is. Is the stuff a perfectionist improves always good enough? Is it ever not good enough? Or maybe not good at all? I think it would be helpful to know what’s something that’s good enough.
When you improve something as a perfectionist is that thing a good enough outcome? I don’t know what a good enough outcome is but could you tell the outcome of the thing youre improving? Is that the outcome that good enough outcomes refer to? That term has the same words as “good enough” in the quote above. I think they might be the same.
I think since the thing that was improved is already good enough you’re not going to stop at a good enough breakpoint. The breakpoint is so you can stop at a good enough one. It’s already that. It’s like a yes or no question. Is it good enough or not? If it is then I think you might run into another kind of breakpoint if you keep improving. Idk
That’s interesting that it’s unclear what’s an improvement. It’s cuz don’t clear goals tell you what to improve? Like, all errors are an improvement if you have clear goals. I forgot exactly what clear goals do.
The perfectionist is already improving stuff, but in the quote above, it says that it’s unclear what is an improvement or why. I think when the perfectionist improves something they don’t know how an improvement looks like. I forget what improvements are but isn’t that what you fix to arrive at the goal? I think an improvement is fixing a decisive error.
What’s “what is an improvement”? Also, is the quote above saying that it’s unclear why something is an improvement? I think the quote is saying that it’s unclear where to stop.
CF uses specific goals and once you succeed at a goal, you’re done (and you can move on a new goal). CF evaluates ideas and goals together in pairs (or triples with the context too). Mainstream epistemology separates the evaluation of ideas from success at any specific goal, so there’s no finish line.
The first sentence:
CF uses specific goals and once you succeed at a goal, you’re done (and you can move on a new goal).
I kind of know about "specific goals". They’re related to errors. I remember a specific goal in a CF article was like get sushi for dinner under $10. That’s a specific goal cuz you know what food to get and you know what your budget is. If you buy some sushi that costed $7 then you achieved your goal. I think the example was in the following article:
It’s interesting that once you succeed in your goal, you’re done. You succeeding means there’s no errors(no decisive errors.) There’s nothing you gotta improve. I think everything is good enough there. If there was a decisive error then it was fixed and now you can arrive at your goal. You’re done cuz you got what you wanted. It’s your goal for a reason.
Idk how CF evaluates those things pairs or triples. What does evaluating do? Is so you can tell it’ll succeed? Like, if you have an important scientific theory, you can use CF to evaluate it. You might see if there’s errors in it or not. I think CF would be good to use cuz it’s epistemology philosophy. That stuff has to do with knowledge and thinking. You can check if your thinking is good or not.
I think there’s a reason why it evaluates things in pairs or triples. That’s cuz an idea could fail at one goal but succeed at another. If you evaluate using a fork for liquid soup then that pair might have an error in it. If you evaluate the pair of using a spoon for soup then that’ll be ok. You gotta know what the goal is and the idea.
I learned more about context so I kind of get evaluating stuff in triples. Let’s say you’re trying to eat soup with a spoon. The pair would be good, but let’s say the context is that you’re in an abandoned island and have no tools. You’re gonna run into an error there. Maybe you won’t run into one if you know how to craft a spoon but yea
Is evaluating an idea checking if it’s good enough? Like, if mainstream epistemology separated the two things then you wouldn’t know what idea you need to work on so you can succeed. Mainstream epistemology doesn’t say something is good enough or not and it encourages perfectionism. If you knew something was good enough then you can work on something else that is a decisive error.
Also, does mainstream epistemology evaluate stuff in singles? Like, only goals or only ideas? Idk but I know CF evaluates ideas and goals in pairs. If you evaluate ideas only would there be no clear stopping point? Like, you don’t know if an idea is good enough for a goal. If you did that then I think you’re evaluating ideas and goals in pairs. Not too sure tho