= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on Wrong Questions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (126)
Actually, on reflection, I find my main criticism is pretty simple:
The author has dissolved the wrong damn argument. It is perfectly true that, having explained both A and B, A-and-B does not require a separate explanation. However, the actual problem is not that he cannot explain A-and-B, it's that he can only explain A and B by describing how they are produced by other things, which he does not explain.
This is, I had thought, pretty basic philosophy; although, to be fair, it's so damn long I can't blame anyone for not realizing that's his core argument.
Also, yes, the word "thing" is pretty vague. No, this does not render all sentences containing it meaningless. Especially when it's part of the compound word "anything".
You might be misinterpreting Maitzen's argument. His newer article, Questioning the Question, may be clearer. And, the volume in which it appears may be of interest to you.
Thanks for the link; it's certainly possible I went astray somewhere, it's a pretty long article.
I'll respond more fully when I've read the linked article.