Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
@giovannibenussi @SimonHoiberg
I think it would be better to simply declare a get fn and then pass it the object and an array of nested properties. Fewer question marks that way.
Has the additional benefit of being able to map/filter/reduce over the nested properties before using them on the object.
That's cool JS has that shorthand, but yikes, the syntax...
To question and challenge, sure, but not to dismantle and disrupt, but to explain the world.
As I’ve said before, when lockdown measures don’t work, lockdown advocates can always claim that measures aren’t strict enough. If they do reduce cases, advocates can claim it’s because of the lockdown. Either way, advocates don’t learn anything. twitter.com/danielkotzin/s…
Right, yes. Plus, a fallibilist epistemology will readily grant that one may be mistaken about it being fundamental, and that something else may come along that takes its place/is more fundamental.
@terrymorse @phuctm97 @profulsadangi
Very cool. Reminds me a bit of one of Brett Victor's talks where he presented (a prototype of?) an app that would show the user the value of variables at each step.
It also aligned outputs. Importantly, it tabulated when a single line produced multiple results. Useful for loops.
It's still logically possible for an epistemology that rejects foundation to effectively be a foundation.
That statement doesn't, but if everything is downstream of epistemology, how is epistemology not a foundation?
@Man_ne_quinn @kyotolover89 @MichaelPSenger @freeeastturki
Yes. Important to note that the title is a bit misleading because it's not necessarily meant as an endorsement. Though they might well be endorsing the people mentioned above.
It's what I meant, and I think so, too.
Does that mean epistemology runs the risk of being a foundation?
Are there any fields that aren’t downstream of epistemology?
@Radhakr08781352 @profulsadangi
Arrow functions have scope. They handle context differently.
There’s no property “twitName” on “this”, which is why it prints “undefined”. Depending on which “twitName” you want to use, you need to either say “twit.twitName” or just “twitName” in the function “a”.
RT @JedLeaHenry:
Happy to be launching the Popperian Podcast. And no better way than with our first guest, the indomitable David Deutsch @D…
RT @michaelmalice:
"I intend to hold you captive in your home" is not the pretext for a civil discussion
It is a declaration of war
RT @MurraySuggests:
Government breaks your legs, hands you a crutch, and says, "If it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to w…
@RealtimeAI @ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf @Crit_Rat
I'm guessing Christofer is referring to Popper's concept of objective knowledge, and that explanations exist independently of people and their psychological states in what Popper called "world 3."
For climate change see the entry on externalities: blog.dennishackethal.com/2020/11/28/lib…
Mask-wearing and guns could be interesting to add... will think about it.
RT @royalsociety:
#OnThisDay in 1964, the Mariner 4 spacecraft was launched, the first to send back images of Mars from space. The first di…
@ReachChristofer @DavidDeutschOxf
That does sound a bit reductionist, as it seems to picture the causal chain always to go from bottom to top, never the other way round.
In reality, software instructs its underlying hardware top-down (IIRC BoI ch. 5 mentions this), and there’s feedback going in both directions.
That’s gross overreach of the police.
In a well-functioning society, the only job of police is to protect people from violence and coercion.
Submitting people to coercion, allegedly to ensure their health, is not only not the police’s responsibility, but it is counter to it.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Yes, I was asking that. I still don't know what you want me to prove.
I highly doubt planes would starting dropping from the skies the moment aviation is deregulated.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Dunno. By "any other way?" I meant "is there any other way to change your mind?"
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Probably not entirely without ends, but there is definitely a focus on the morality of the means, and the (real or imagined) importance of certain ends is not considered a justification for coercion, exploitation, etc.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
See this entry: blog.dennishackethal.com/2020/11/28/lib…
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
There has never been a libertarian society. I suspect the US is the closes to it but still pretty far from.
It's important to note that I'm not striving for some "ideal society," nor do I think such a thing could exist. See the corresponding entry here: blog.dennishackethal.com/2020/11/28/lib…
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
I think many libertarian societies may well end up safer, more just, healthier, etc. It's the ensuring of those things that gets one in trouble and leads to coercion.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
That said, is libertarian society is much better equipped to solve problems of any kind, including healthcare, life expectancy, etc, because of the absence of coercion and the freedom to create and solve problems.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Probably not, because "ensuring" access to anything as a positive right needs to be financed somehow, and that is always done by exploiting productive members of society. A libertarian society wouldn't ensure any of that.
Liberty is not about outcomes. It's about methodology.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Yeah I've seen those. "Equity" is just a new buzzword "liberals" use to make their destructive demands sound more reasonable and fluffy and cute.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Equity can itself only be achieved through coercion because people are naturally different and develop in different directions and at different speeds.
So this won't work. Any other way?
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
The morally reprehensible act enforced in parts of Australia is, effectively, house arrest, from what I understand. That clearly passed. It is morally utterly disgusting and coercive, life-destroying. They might as well force people to gouge their eyes out.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf @TheIPA @RDNS_TAI
That still doesn't refute anything the article wrote because the article didn't make claims about any specific outcomes.
"just, sustainable [...] society" are words commonly used to defend coercion and extortion of peaceful people.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
You seem to be in favor of coercion because "it works" and is in the "public interest" (which can't exist, see Arrow's theorem).
How could I change your mind about coercion?
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
I had given a clear example of a democratically sanctioned, yet morally reprehensible and coercive act when enforced. You responded with a technicality saying it's not the legislation that coercive, it's the police enforcing the legislation. As if that made a difference.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
You tend to argue from "it works" and "it's democratically justified." Those aren't moral arguments. They're attempts at justification based on outcomes.
What's required is a moral explanation for why coercion is morally okay. Nobody has ever given that explanation.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
So now you're saying governments are coercive?
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
That doesn't refute anything written in the article. Or does it?
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Yes. Btw, I never claimed that the legislation was coercion. It is coercive, though.
So do you agree that if a policeman forced you to gouge your own eyes out, on the basis of some legislation, that that's still coercion, even if democratically "legitimized"?
@jcnz88 @paulg
This reminded me to add the traffic thing to these libertarian FAQs: blog.dennishackethal.com/2020/11/28/lib…
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
I don't doubt that. But can you answer the question? Would that coercive, yes or no?
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
If your Australian representatives enacted legislation forcing you to gouge your own eyes out at the threat of murder, and everyone voted for it, would that not be coercive?
@__adamjohnson_ @ChipkinLogan
Having one's writing compared to Deutsch's is the highest praise. Glad you like it.
@micahtredding @MatMcGann @dela3499
One has to be tolerant of dissent internal to one's mind as well, if that's what you mean. In other words, these moral theories don't just apply to the creation of ideas that are made explicit (and maybe even communicated to others), but all of them.
@jcnz88 @paulg
But the government doesn't own people's homes so they shouldn't be able to dictate the rules of what happens in those homes.
@jcnz88 @paulg
Then there is the issue of private property rights. Whoever owns roads can make and enforce rules for using them and ban ppl who don't follow them.
People owning or renting homes can make the rules for who gets to enter their homes, for how long, etc because it's their property.
@jcnz88 @paulg
Another difference is that traffic rules are the conditions for using roads. There's nothing wrong with that.
But there's something very wrong with telling people who they can meet up with and when and how often and for how long.
@jcnz88 @paulg
Anyone else they might spread it to is also exposing himself to people voluntarily. Unless he is forced, in which case the answer to force isn't more force but less of it.
The driving thing is an often-used false equivalency because, for one, one doesn't live on the road.
As Popper remarked, it's impossible to speak in such a way as to never be misunderstood. :)
@MatMcGann @dela3499 @micahtredding
Morality is prior to knowledge in other ways, too: one first has to value truth, its pursuit, be tolerant of criticism, allow dissent, etc, to create knowledge. Some of these are related to error correction but some aren't.
I know this is meant as a joke and all, but... Popper wasn't after disproving things...
As Popper pointed out, knowledge-laden systems are better changed piecemeal, as much of the knowledge may be lost through revolutions/sudden major transformations.
RT @EmmanuelMacron:
Wir, Franzosen, teilen den Schock und die Trauer von der Österreicher nach einer Angriff in Wien. Nach Frankreich ist e…
Indeed. It's the creation of knowledge that underpins all of these, and knowledge is always created by evolution.
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
@thethinkersmith @ToKTeacher @dela3499 @Crit_Rat @reasonisfun
0-3:59 All life is problem solving
YES.
3:59 Therefore i…
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Right. So you agree, by implication, that legislation can be coercive.
Do you still disagree that the response to COVID (which, btw, is mostly done by the executive branch, not the legislative one) is coercive and therefore morally illegitimate?
Yearning for liberty? Curious about it? Would living in a truly free society even work?
@ChipkinLogan and I wrote an FAQ with the most common questions about/objections to libertarianism.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Is your answer to the question of what coercion is: "It's when someone is forced to do something they don’t want to do"?
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
What is coercion? Force someone to do something they don’t want to do?
Are you asking me? I asked you what you think coercion is.
Btw, I didn't ask about legislation.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
That doesn't answer my question.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
“Then you are not coerced...”
The “then” is misleading because that’s a non-sequitur.
I’m guessing there’s a misunderstanding about the nature of coercion.
In your own words, what’s coercion?
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
No, that’s something people do out of necessity. Necessity != coercion.
Necessity is often used as an excuse to coerce people.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Right, you’re “obliged” (euphemism for “forced”) to stay inside even if you want to go outside and even though it’s your property. That’s force.
The rationale is irrelevant as it provides no moral explanation. The ends don’t justify the means.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
Why do people always go to traffic rules?
No, I’m not, because nobody’s forcing me to drive.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
When somebody is subjected to a curfew against his will, that’s coercion.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
I saw that you asked the other guy that too.
You may assume that I know nothing about epidemiology. That doesn’t provide a moral explanation for why it’s okay to coerce people into caring for each other’s health. Such an explanation is required before coercing them.
@CognitiveVerb @RanoCeros @naomirwolf
That doesn't mean it's okay to coerce other people into staying home for the health of that person.
Isn’t the constitution there to protect the people?
Yes, to protect people from the government. Not to ensure people's health, much less coerce them into ensuring each other's health.
@DKedmey @DavidDeutschOxf @paulg
Presumably because static societies enforce conformity and date back to the beginning of our evolution.
Judging only by the quote, it strikes me as a variant of Popper's "who should rule" question. Might it be better to ask: how can we identify and correct mistakes in our concepts/theories?
The first link has the same thumbnail as a shorter one of a similar title you may have seen already, but don't be fooled—this one is much longer.
The YT channel Philosophy Overdose has been on a "Popper spree." The other day, they uploaded another lecture of his:
Here are all of their videos on/by Popper: youtube.com/c/Philosophica…
Especially his lectures are highly recommended.
Our knowledge contains mistakes. We want to find and correct them, and seek to better understand the world by making new, better mistakes.
.@AliceDreger is right to criticize relativism: it truly is a rotten ideology. But there can be no "reliable, verifiable knowledge," and it should not be "the common value of the learned"—or anyone else. twitter.com/SwipeWright/st…
It would also be interesting to know a non-refuted moral explanation for why it is okay to lock people and businesses down.
I suppose we won’t ever know such an explanation, either.
@LarsWienand @Der_Postillon @BenjaminHoff
Wieso ist es „unerträglich“?
Lots of good epistemology in the comments. twitter.com/FrancescoCiull…
Plane about an hour delayed so far, no departure time yet. Reason: a Velcro strap that has to be replaced.
Replacement has long been done, but according to the pilot, FAA regulations require about 8 pages of paperwork documenting the change before liftoff.
@RSocPublishing @royalsociety @Independent
First they said we only had one earth. Now they say we only have one moon...
"The problem is there's no law to regulate who gets to use the resources [in space]" GOOD. Keep government out of space.
@gabepllrn @colorcodedlife @scottishlabour @MonicaLennon7 @ScotParl
Not sure I'm interested in actually changing your mind. I just wanted to know if it's even possible. In any field, when that isn't possible, that's a bad sign.
Btw, distrusting another's opinion simply because it contradicts one's own is another anti-rational attitude.
Yeah. Socialists never call what they do "theft" and "violence." Instead they like to speak of "free stuff" and "equity" and "justice."
@gabepllrn @colorcodedlife @scottishlabour @MonicaLennon7 @ScotParl
If one can't change your mind, why engage in discussion? It sounds like you're protecting your ideas in this area from criticism, which means you will have a harder time noticing mistakes, which means you will have a harder time learning and making progress.
I'm afraid it looks like it's real:
@gabepllrn @colorcodedlife @scottishlabour @MonicaLennon7 @ScotParl
How could one change your mind?
@gabepllrn @colorcodedlife @scottishlabour @MonicaLennon7 @ScotParl
Earth
@colorcodedlife @gabepllrn @scottishlabour @MonicaLennon7 @ScotParl
I wasn’t talking about recognition. Did you see Burr’s video?