RSP's Quote

Date: 2020-08-21

Note: nomenclature like (cN) at the start of a sentence or paragraph indicates “a confidence of N / 10”. Anything without once indicates a confidence of 9 or 10 / 10.

Bolded terms are my claims of dishonesty; italicised terms are just regular emphasis.

Original Quote
Analysis 2020-08-21
Analysis 2020-08-24

Original Quote

I think Lulie Tanett’s reply to Jack Birner’s piece here is dead on. The quotation from Jack Birner’s piece is verbose and largely incorrect. I grant that some critical rationalists don’t get out much (are introverted), but there are many who are quite extraverted. Just look at me! Or David McDonagh! I’m completely happy being surrounded by justificationists - just so I can have a go at them all at once. 😁 When at the University of Warwick, I used to love finding a bunch of Marxist-Lenninists and throwing the Economic Calculation Problem at them plus the impossibility of justifying one’s position. Talk about a double punch to the jaw! It was easy though - they all had glass jaws. 😂 As for critical rationalism getting “entrenched”, what’s needed is to get out there and apply it to various problems in different domains. I also think that yes, we lost the great Popperian Knights Peter Medawar and Sir John Eccles, but there are major living scientists who do respect philosophy and often refer to Popper’s work - Frank Tipler the astrophysicist (who described Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery as one of the most important books of the 20th Century), for example, and many others. Rational argument has a force of its own, as I argue in depth in my book. Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age. You simply can’t wait to get out there and use it. That’s what it felt like at Warwick with the ECA. The same applies to CR. If one imprudently allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” beware the corruption to one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.

Analysis 2020-08-21

I think Lulie Tanett’s reply to Jack Birner’s piece here is dead on.

In general this sort of comment & phrasing doesn’t need to have bad social stuff in it, however, RSP is replying only to Lulie’s comment and not to any of the other comments. There are multiple other threads - which he doesn’t reply to. It’s also a reply to OP, not to Lulie’s comment (though as far as Facebook is concerned the threading is terrible, so this doesn’t need to be done for self-aggrandising reasons).

He is thanking Lulie for the tag by replying like this and as a top-post - a little social dance.

His reply is also entirely non-critical, which is odd considering he’s meant to be a prominent CR thinker. It’s also hard to believe he didn’t have any issues with Lulie’s post or interpretation – unless he didn’t bother to think much about it; he should know better. It might be possible to reply casually such that a lax reading of Lulie’s post was okay, but this is a CR forum! Not ~~reddit or~~ _(edited) a discussion about a restaurant or the movies. His inappropriate of tone is projecting low effort (as in LoLE, not one of carelessness) – we’ll see more of this mismatch throughout his post.

The quotation from Jack Birner’s piece is verbose and largely incorrect.

The quotation is neither verbose (as some things were omitted) and isn’t “largely” incorrect AFAIK; though there are errors like the ellipsis. What RSP means is that this part of Birner’s essay is verbose and largely incorrect. ‘Extract’ is a better word than ‘quotation’ – this is careless and ambiguous. If you brought this sort of thing up with someone a response like you know what I meant is typical. (Casual phrasing is okay when it suits the subject matter; this doesn’t.)

He says verbose, which is sort-of-true. It is somewhat verbose (as in prolix) but the bigger issue is the academese and fanciness. RSP is thus non-specific in an important way. We know it’s not that verbose because my outline of Birner’s extract is of comparable length; if Birner’s extract was verbose only, it would have a smaller ~~extract~~ outline _(edited). I suspect RSP’s writing is fancy, too. If RSP writes in academese, then to criticise Birner for this would admit hypocrisy, so RSP would be dodging criticism (social agility).

RSP also projects expertise.

I grant that some critical rationalists don’t get out much (are introverted), but there are many who are quite extraverted.

(c7) “Don’t get out much” is a somewhat pejorative way to talk about one’s colleagues (so RSP does some relative social-status elevation here).

This is also a false concession since intro/extroversion isn’t particularly relevant to Birner’s argument. Plenty of introverted ppl do politicking – that’s why the idea of “in the shadows” or puppet-master-ing is reasonably well known.

Added in tutorial: false concession because he’s not granting anything – the comparison via ‘but’ indicates he’s disagreeing with a more fundamental point (and is condescending to Birner).

Just look at me! Or David McDonagh!

RSP name drops someone. I googled David McDonagh and found an anesthesiologist; once I added ‘popper’ to the search the first result was the CR facebook group, and the second was an article from libertarian.co.uk titled “Ray Scott Percival’s The Myth of the Closed Mind, Reviewed by David McDonagh (2012)” 🤨. Apparently D. McDonagh isn’t extroverted enough to do much SEO.

RSP also uses himself as a counterpoint, which is anecdotal at best, but crucially isn’t arguing the point well at all. He could have e.g. pointed out that Birner didn’t link the stated traits of CR-attracted personalities/characteristics to the idea they make it harder to do CR related work.

Aside: Birner doesn’t take in to account what the goals of someone in CR are/should be. If one is to do relevant philosophical work simpliciter then who cares about being an academic? If one is to be an academic that is more problematic. Both RSP and Lulie could have pointed that out, but it might have raised conflicts w/in them.

Added in tutorial: bragging.

I’m completely happy being surrounded by justificationists - just so I can have a go at them all at once. 😁

(c7) Outright lie or bad thinking – this would mean RSP is fine with ppl having low-quality ideas in general as long as he has good ones (or something along those lines). As he goes on it seems more like he cares about having better ideas than other people (i.e. relativity is important). If it’s not an outright lie, the ‘bad thinking’ is just as bad because he should know better.

Confidence explanation: “outright lie” is a strong claim; I’m hesitant to put it so bluntly. I think it’s reasonable if true, though.

(c6) This statement is pro-metaphorical-violence, RSP is aggrandising winning, even though it’s presumable the justificationists aren’t convinced by RSP. This is one reason it’s metaphorically violent – RSP can’t convince them so just attacks them instead.

Confidence explanation: I’ve worded this pretty strongly, which might be unfair.

(c9) It’s also anti-Popper because it’s against the idea of ideas dying in one’s stead. The implication somewhat aligns with: justificationists have been, are, and always will be justificationists. An alternate interpretation is that RSP is speaking collectively (in that there always will be justificationists), but that is contradicted by his next few sentences. RSP implies he enjoys the debate more than improving ppl’s ideas (and by extension, their lives). He should know better.

The emoji “😁” indicates RSP is pleased with himself, and socially pressures others to replicate that idea.

When at the University of Warwick, I used to love finding a bunch of Marxist-Lenninists and throwing the Economic Calculation Problem at them plus the impossibility of justifying one’s position.

RSP concept drops “the Economic Calculation Problem” (which I’ve never heard of before). Wikipedia just says it’s the problem of being unable to replicate market-driven prices with economic planning. That’s a fancy name for a simple problem.

(note from tutorial: I’m missing a lot of context on econ-calc-problem; like Marxists changing focus b/c of Mises’s paper)

Moreover, I’m pretty sure most Marxists/Leninists aren’t super concerned about pricing; their arguments are often about other things like supposed tyranny / slavery via working / employment. Concept dropping here is not making a point relevant to LT’s post or Birner’s extract (or at least I don’t see how it is ATM). It is relevant to RSP claiming he’s extroverted, but it’s just more anecdotes, which gives him an excuse for concept-dropping, elevating relative social status (with respect to justificationists and Marxists/Leninists), institution dropping U of Warwick.

“The impossibility of justifying one’s position” is ambiguous. Does he mean throwing the combined econ-calc-problem + cant-justify-your-position at them, or that these are two different problems he’d throw at them at separate times? The second option doesn’t fit b/c of the way he’s worded the sentence and the grouping of nouns. The first option is okay, but why would he say that, isn’t the econ-calc problem enough? Is he just pointing out (to them) that we should not have contradictions in our ideas (which is presumably why their position on econ-calc problem is impossible to justify)? Why is he picking on Marxists/Leninists only? (Though my experience - of uni in Australia - is there aren’t many other ~~active pro-communist~~ groups that are accessible and out-and-about.) RSP should not be so careless.

Claiming to have publicly attacked Marxists/Leninists raises relative social status and is self-aggrandising.

“used to love” is odd compared to “loved” – is the comparative implication is that he doesn’t love it anymore?

Typo/grammar errors:

“Lenninists” has an extra ‘n’
“throwing the Economic Calculation Problem at them plus the impossibility of justifying one’s position”
- ‘at them’ modifies ‘throwing’ but RSP then uses a conjunction to add another noun, so the intended meaning is: “throwing A and B at them”, not “throwing A at them plus B”. (the latter being unprincipled / overly casual / ambiguous / etc).

Talk about a double punch to the jaw! It was easy though - they all had glass jaws. 😂

More self aggrandising (look at how good I am, esp compared to other ppl who tried the same thing).

More metaphorical violence, including “glass jaw” which is explicitly a boxing/fist-fighting reference.

The emoji “😂” expresses laughter and emphasises the previous sentences, showing how casual and embracing of metaphorical violence RSP is. There’s minor social pressure on others to find this entertaining / funny too.

As for critical rationalism getting “entrenched”, what’s needed is to get out there and apply it to various problems in different domains.

RSP indirectly points out ‘entrenched’ was a weird word for Birner to use, but talks past it (non-sequitur). RSP is ambiguous about what “it” is, but it’s easy enough to read that he’s talking about CR (not ‘CR getting “entrenched”’) b/c it’s posted to a CR forum.

He’s also projecting expertise, esp because there are no qualifiers like ‘I think’ or even something like ‘the best way’ (which would at least acknowledge other solns are possible).

He does not give examples or explanation and moves on.

I also think that yes, we lost the great Popperian Knights Peter Medawar and Sir John Eccles, but there are major living scientists who do respect philosophy and often refer to Popper’s work - Frank Tipler the astrophysicist (who described Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery as one of the most important books of the 20th Century), for example, and many others.

This is RSP’s messiest and longest sentence.

He starts “I also think that yes, …” even though: nobody else mentioned PM or JE, and there’s no need for this false/irrelevant concession (it’s a concession because of the usage of “yes”).

It’s another metaphorical violence reference and invokes simplistic ideas of virtue via the use of “Knights”. This also name drops to (presumably deceased) people. “Sir” is an appeal to status and raises relative social status (because RSP knows a knight in the modern sense). While there’s ambiguety between old ideas of knighthood (righteous violence) and the modern idea, we know RSP is invoking the old idea particularly b/c the full adjective is “Popperian Knights”, which both includes Peter Medawar (who presumably doesn’t have a title like ‘sir’) and relegates the knighthood to defending Popper. We shouldn’t need violence to defend good ideas (even if it’s metaphorical violence) – RSP should have known better.

It also implies the act of defending Popper is what’s virtuous, not having good ideas – RSP should have known better.

His use of “major living scientists who do respect philosophy” which is a veiled attack on scientists who RSP disagrees with. It’s also an excuse to name drop Frank Tipler (“the astrophysicist”) in a way that doesn’t really add to the conversation except to point out some scientists are still concerned with philosophy. (c6) Indirectly it’s anti-criticism wrt other ideas, though it can be overlooked as an inappropriate level of detail for this post.

The parenthetical on Tipler is largely irrelevant to scientific works; it’s more relevant to philosophy of science.

(todo: rest of this sentence)

Rational argument has a force of its own, as I argue in depth in my book.

He somewhat contradicts himself with the mostly-true “rational argument has a force of its own” statement (though repeats the misuse of ‘force’). However, that contradiction is in service to self-aggrandisement via mentioning his book, further raising relative social status and projecting expertise.

It’s possible LT mentioned RSP just so he could mention he wrote a relevant book, which is something LT should have done, but otherwise moving through social motions.

Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age.

todo

You simply can’t wait to get out there and use it.

todo

That’s what it felt like at Warwick with the ECA.

todo

The same applies to CR.

todo

If one imprudently allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” beware the corruption to one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.

todo

~~“cold autumn wind” could be a reference to 1984’s “It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking 13”. (todo: check 1984 quote)~~ (Note: decided in tutorial this wasn’t a 1984 ref)

Analysis 2020-08-24

Rational argument has a force of its own, as I argue in depth in my book.

The contradiction here: why make all the other points about CR (or CR practitioners) he did above but then make a claim about rational argument that usurps the previous points? There’s no need for those points unless RSP concedes that the “force” of “rational argument” is in some way insufficient, and doing stuff like being extroverted or politicking are good ideas. (Which, ofc, would mean there is some rational argument for them.)

He could have addressed this with qualifiers like “none of that really matters though, b/c rational argument…”, or structuring things differently.

It’s possible LT mentioned RSP just so he could mention he wrote a relevant book; mentioning the book is something LT should have done, but otherwise the interaction is moving through social motions.

Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age.

Another comparison to violence.

There’s also a lot of social framing of the ideas here: light sabres are weapons of the Jedi. Throughout Star Wars the idea is often repeated that only Jedis are skillful enough to handle a light sabre well enough to use in combat; other ppl don’t have them (they also can’t really get them). Jedis are positioned as virtuous and just, and often they occupy the role of applying righteous justice. Jedis only use violence when necessary and only on bad people. Etc etc etc. RSP is comparing CR practitioners to Jedis and other ppl (who refuse his arguments) as barbarians (maybe sand people to keep the star wars motif).

Moreover, what happened to weak ppl in the bronze age? They got conquered, they didn’t get convinced or persuaded. What is RSP suggesting here?

Stepping back… RSP said “being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age”, so he’s sort of presuming there’s already going to be a battle, metaphorical life will already be lost, but a strong argument (not ‘rational argument’) is a decisive advantage (like a light sabre). I think I had more of an impression he was advocating having a light sabre and going out to use it, deliberately, but it’s a little less aggressive when you’re given it for the battle.

You simply can’t wait to get out there and use it.

WHAT?! We should want to go out and be violent?

WRT “can’t wait”, is RSP talking about eagerness or urgency? Both interpretations have issues.

Either way he seems to be advocating using metaphorical force or violence (via rational argument) against ppl, which just doesn’t make sense if you’re not like convincing them. maybe his goal is not to convince them?

Stepping back, linking the last two sentences makes sense and I think reveals some meaning: ‘Having a strong argument is like being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age[:] [you] simply can’t wait to get out there and use it.’

This makes it sound like RSP thinks there is an obligation for ppl with a metaphorical light sabre to use it.

To what end?

That’s what it felt like at Warwick with the ECA.

RSP has loosely said he felt good about the Warwick+ECA thing, and now that it felt like “being given a light sabre for a battle in the bronze age”.

So he either wanted to hurt the socialists or thought conflict was inevitable so was happy he had an advantage. But he didn’t express any remorse or other thoughts, just a sort of faux-CR hooliganism.

The same applies to CR.

He’s wrong, but it reveals we ~~weren’t incorrect~~ were okay to assume this before.

If one imprudently allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” beware the corruption to one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.

He drops a “safe space” reference but it’s unclear if he did so jokingly or not. I think he did but I’m not sure. Even if it’s an ambiguous signal, it’s still a social signal of some kind.

However, the bigger issue here is how he frames everything in this last sentence! “imprudently allows a sound counterargument” – this, taken at face value, is anti-CR. We should want as many sound ideas as possible regardless of “cherished beliefs” (we shouldn’t cherish them, anyway).

I don’t think this sentence should be read at face value tho, because I think taking on a non-CR master/teacher figure to make a point (further status signalling). It’s misleading and bad writing to swap perspectives like this; esp without making it explicit or at least like a paragraph break or some other flagging language. Instead he gets poetic (status signal) for no clear reason.

RSP is making the point that if you pay attention to ideas and judge them on quality, you’ll find that you stop believing some stuff you liked to believe. That’s mostly true, but it’s not clear why he’s making this point or why he thought it would be more impactful or meaningful to say it like this (philosophically).

“Imprudently” is a weird word to use here b/c he could speak from a neutral PoV if he didn’t add this adverb. “Beware” has an anti-CR connotation here too, but it’s somewhat general and acceptable b/c of the poetic/purple way he’s put this last sentence. He could have just said “If one allows a sound counterargument into one’s “safe space,” know the consequences for one’s cherished beliefs - they may fall and wither like leaves from a cold autumn wind.” Something like that is wanky* but at least somewhat correct.

* wanky: adjective, vulgar slang • British
adjective: wanky; comparative adjective: wankier; superlative adjective: wankiest
definition: pretentious, contemptible, or stupid.
“wanky art-house movies”

You can leave a comment anonymously. No sign up or login is required. Use a junk email if not your own; email is only for notifications—though, FYI, I will be able to see it.