Notes | Tutorial 32
Date: 2020-08-26LW discussion for treeification
Tutorial
can explain what I’m doing; “I’m not really sure what your point is, here are some adjacent points/thoughts to help us get moving”
keep awareness of how well the things I’m saying would form a debate tree (and if it’s intended to)
keep track of which are good tree replies and which are general; label each
47min - Popper example, better to do minimal example needed to make the point; don’t use an example without extra stuff not required.
50min -
[;]
I'm not suggesting anything I said was a reason to think both theories wrong,
[;]
and
I listed it because it was a possibility I didn't mention in the other paragraphs
it's a bit of a trivial case for this stuff
i.e. if we come up with a reason both are wrong then we don't have to worry about them anymore if we can't answer that criticism
am
I
not
suggesting
that
anything
that
I said was a reason to think
that
both theories [are] wrong
really badly constructed sentence
alt: I’m not [trying to advocate]/[advocating] skepticism
66min
72min
trying to sort out mess
- high effort to start with better than trying to clean it up later
- psychological reasons: once discussion seems lower quality ppl often get careless or give up, and attitude issues get in the way
78 min - topic sentence issue; actual point is sentence 2 not sentence 1. not a direct q or request; deemphasises it, and means I’m expecting TAG to guess what’s necessary.
not highlighting the response was inadequate - there’s a need to backtrack.
point is that my previous msg is still unanswered and it needs to be answered; that is unstated, though
97 min - next conversation: make an idea tree as I go along
100 min - (a few min before hand) the issue around “The relevance is that CR can’t guarantee that any given dispute is resolveable.”
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.
Comments powered by Talkyard.