ET's YESNO Intro video (transcript)

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

In "1 - Video - Introduction.mp4" from http://www.yesornophilosophy.com ,Elliot Temple says (lightly edited, no comments by me):

> Yes or No Philosophy is an original idea in the philosophy of knowledge. It partly builds on Karl Popper and David Deutsch's *critical rationalism* philosophy. It deals with important issues like:
>
> - how to decide between ideas,
>
> - how to judge ideas, and
>
> - what is knowledge;
>
> and it challenges what everyone knows, or what they think they know.
>
> Common sense and philosophical experts agree: judge ideas by how much they're supported by evidence and arguments. That's a big mistake.
>
> Actually, rational thinking should use *yes or no* judgments. I talk about how and why.
>
> Before you dive in, I'm going to tell you a little bit about how to use this material. I numbered all the files, so there's a recommended order. You can go out of order if you want, but there's one important thing:
>
>> 2 - Video - Yes or No Philosophy.mp4
>
> Watch the *Yes or No Philosophy* video before the rest. This is a long video that everything else is based on. So it'll give you all the information you need for the other stuff to make more sense. Everything is built around it. It's 2.5 hours, but it comes in 7 parts, so there are convenient break spots if you don't want to watch it all at once; that's no problem.
>
> Overall, I'd recommend you don't rush through this material. It's very dense; there are a lot of ideas to digest. You'll want to take your time and think it over.
>
> You probably don't want to go too slow either, though. If it took you a whole month to go through all this, then you would forget some things at the beginning by the time you got to the end. So, maybe a week or two would be a better amount of time, if that works for you.
>
>> info.txt
>
> If you get stuck, if you have questions, go to info.txt and you can find a link to a discussion forum where you can ask your questions. You can also go to my blog and ask questions in the blog comments.
>
> You can quote from the material just like if you owned a book. Don't copy/paste a whole article, but feel free to quote stuff and comment on it just like normal.
>
> I want to quickly go over what's included.
>
> Summary of other elements of the course:
>
>> 3 - Article - Critical Rationalism.pdf
>
> This is an article on critical rationalism. It will help explain Karl Popper's philosophy for you. So if you're not familiar with it, that's good. Even if you are familiar, I have a somewhat different perspective on it than a lot of other people do. And there's some useful information there, like about evolution.
>
>> 4 - Video - Burden of proof.mp4
>
> Then I talk about the *burden of proof* idea. You've probably heard of that one before.
>
>> 5 - Article - Libraries of Criticism.pdf
>
> *Libraries of criticism* is a way of thinking about your knowledge.
>
>> 6 - Article - The Stability of Judgements.pdf
>
> *The Stability of Judgements* is my favorite article. I'm really happy with that one. It has some especially important ideas in it.
>
>> 7 - Article - Justification and Problems.pdf
>
> *Justification and Problems* talks about, especially, what a problem is and how to think about problems.
>
>> 8 - Video - Support Contradicts Logic.mp4
>
> *Support Contradicts Logic* has some arguing. If you want to debate people, this one'll be really helpful.
>
>> 9 - Article - Facts and Amounts.pdf
>
> *Facts and Amounts* gives a perspective on what facts are and how you use them.
>
>> 10 - Article - Short Argument.pdf
>
> The *Short Argument* is something you can quote in public. It gives a quick argument you could use in a debate, or you could challenge someone with. If you're telling someone about these ideas and they say that you're wrong, I thought it would be useful if you had an argument you could send them, so I wanted to include that.
>
>> 11 - Video - Six Explanations.mp4
>
> The *Six Explanations* video goes over 6 of my old blog posts. I talk about them and give commentary.
>
>> 12 - Article - Opposing Views.pdf
>
> *Opposing Views* gives some quotes from people who disagree with what I'm saying, so you can see that I'm fairly representing their positions when I talk about it, and I reply a bit.
>
>> 13 - Article - David Deutsch Commentary.pdf
>>
>> 14 - Article - Karl Popper Commentary.pdf
>
> Then I have commentary articles for David Deutsch and Karl Popper where I quote from their books. I show that even though they're critical rationalists, they're making some of the mistakes that I talk about, and I talk about why I think my approach is better, how it's an improvement over what came before.
>
>> 15 - Video - Five More Explanations.mp4
>
> *Five More Explanations* goes over more blog posts.
>
>> 16 - FAQ.pdf
>
> The *FAQ* has a lot of short arguments and explanations in it.
>
>> 17 - Check Your Understanding Questions.pdf
>
> Then I did some questions, because it's very common for people to think they understand something, but they didn't actually understand all of it — they missed a few parts. So, these questions will help you if you want to check how well you understand it.
>
> If you find the questions difficult to answer, you could review some of the material, or you could go online and ask some questions.
>
>> 18 - Video - Overview.mp4
>
> The final video is an overview where I talk about a bunch of the articles.

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

In the first paragraph of "1 - Video - Introduction.mp4" from http://www.yesornophilosophy.com, Elliot Temple (ET) says:

> Yes or No Philosophy is an original idea in the philosophy of knowledge.

The name "Yes or No Philosophy" indicates that the thing it refers to is a philosophy that has to do with binary or Boolean stuff.

ET starts out by giving you the big picture of what you're about to read/watch. He says that Yes or No Philosophy (YESNO) is *something new*, i.e. not a recap, in the *philosophy of knowledge*, i.e. not in the field of astronomy or psychology, or even in some other sub-field of philosophy.

> It partly builds on Karl Popper and David Deutsch's *critical rationalism* philosophy.

ET states the main ideas that the new thing (YESNO) is based on. This is important context. As Elliot wrote (quoted in https://twitter.com/ElliotTempleBot/status/1185368518570762241 ):

>> Consider, when you claim something, if you think it’s a new, original idea, an uncommon idea, a reasonably well known idea, or an extremely popular idea. If you don’t know which it is, or where you got it, that’s a problem. That indicates you don’t know much about your own idea.

Also, it's important to build on existing knowledge. As Elliot wrote (quoted in https://twitter.com/ElliotTempleBot/status/1194465355252617218 ):

>> Developing ideas from scratch is, in general, bad. It’s like rewriting software from scratch. You end up creating a bunch of new bugs. The existing stuff has been exposed to a lot of critical thinking. Many errors/bugs have been fixed.

Back to ET in the "1 - Video - Introduction.mp4":

> [YESNO] deals with important issues like:

It's good to know that YESNO deals with important stuff. A lot of new stuff is not that important in the scheme of things.

> - how to decide between ideas,

Ok, that sounds pretty important! Most people are full of contradictions that they don't know how to resolve. Being able to decide between conflicting ideas would be pretty helpful and important.

> - how to judge ideas, and

This issue seems similar to the previous one. Rather than deciding between ideas, though, it sounds like it's more about judging ideas on their own merits? Maybe this issue comes up when we're brainstorming new ideas or hearing someone else's idea.

> - what is knowledge;

That's an important issue! It sounds like one of those big questions with which even the ancient Greeks must have dealt and to which almost no one has a good answer.

> and it challenges what everyone knows, or what they think they know.

Wow! So not only is YESNO important and new, but it's going to challenge, or contradict, what almost everyone knows.

The above paragraph gives us an initial orientation towards the material that will follow. It's also made some big promises about that material. If YESNO can deliver on these promises, then it would be important material for almost everyone to study.

[rest of introduction video not commented on in this message]

[Andy Dufresne]

On Dec 3, 2019, at 7:43 PM, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum

This is the kind of analysis I have specifically resisted doing. I find
them boring, both to write and to read.

Instead, I tried to write summaries of key points. For example:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fallible-ideas/lczMMz0K-_s/VlWAsW59BQAJ

I’m not ready to restart my study of YESNO right now. But for when I
do, I’m curious why you chose this format and if you think it’s
better than writing summaries of key points like I was doing. If my
method of checking my understanding of YESNO is bad, I should change it
before restarting.

--Andy

[Elliot Temple]

It’s more than one kind of analysis. It’s more than one thing. So I find this reply unclear. I don’t know which parts you dislike or why.

> Instead, I tried to write summaries of key points. For example: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fallible-ideas/lczMMz0K-_s/VlWAsW59BQAJ

No objection to key point summaries, though that particular post looks (glancing at it, not reading) overly long and complicated for one chunk.


Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

[Andy Dufresne]

OK, I agree that what I wrote is unclear. And the lack of clarity in my
reply reflects a lack of clarity in thought. It’s not just a writing
omission error.

Trying to think about it more clearly, by “kind of analysis” I think
I mean something like: Detailed point-by-point analysis that’s not
criticism. I think all of Alisa’s comments fit that description. Do
you or does anyone else disagree?

I often find detailed point-by-point criticism (fisking) interesting.

And I often find response essays with purposes other than criticism
(like summarizing or restating in different ways or giving concrete
examples) interesting.

I think it’s only the combination of point-by-point response and
non-criticism that I have a problem with.

--Andy

[Elliot Temple]

I agree that Alisa’s post constitutes "Detailed point-by-point analysis that’s not criticism” (I wouldn’t have called it detailed, but it does qualify in some sense). But I don’t think that’s actually what you dislike. Do you have a problem with this analysis (which is also in that category)?

https://learnobjectivism.com/atlas-shrugged-chapter-1

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

By this "kind of analysis" do mean detailed, point-by-point analysis? Did you find Elliot's close reading of Atlas Shrugged boring to read? ( https://learnobjectivism.com/atlas-shrugged-chapter-1 )

Also, did you find the Twitter quotes from ElliotTempleBot boring? I thought they were interesting and relevant to the underlying YESNO content.

> Instead, I tried to write summaries of key points. For example: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fallible-ideas/lczMMz0K-_s/VlWAsW59BQAJ

I find most people's summaries boring to read, including that one. I'd rather just read the original, provided the original author is good.

> I’m not ready to restart my study of YESNO right now. But for when I do, I’m curious why you chose this format and if you think it’s better than writing summaries of key points like I was doing.

I had some point-by-point thoughts and decided to share them. Writing one detailed, point-by-point post doesn't mean I won't also write other kinds of posts.

Maybe it would help if I explain what I'm trying to achieve here.

It was challenging for me to write the post you replied to. IIRC, it took me roughly 45 minutes. (Source: here's a screencast of me writing it, with pauses longer than 2.5 s edited out: https://asciinema.org/a/8I0yU67ROUf7ghLxSbcjj2ZKb )

I often find it hard to say just one true, relevant sentence on a given topic. Stringing together multiple true, relevant sentences in a row is even harder.

I also find it challenging to write without making the following other kinds of mistakes:

- typos and grammar errors

- unclear statements (including unclear reference words)

- formatting errors

When I write an FI post, my main purpose is usually to practice avoiding those kinds of mistakes. It might be good for me to have other purposes, but for now that's what I'm focusing on.

> If my method of checking my understanding of YESNO is bad, I should change it before restarting.

I have no comments on your method, but I agree with that statement.

[Andy Dufresne]

Yes, it’s also in that category and yes, I also have a problem with
it. Less of a problem than with Alisa’s post but still a problem.

Your Atlas Shrugged analysis is more interesting than Alisa’s YESNO
analysis because you ask more questions. The questions you ask present a
challenge to answer. But I still didn’t get very far (less than
1/10th) before quitting. It’s been a while since you first published
your AS analysis. But I don’t recall getting much if any further the
first time I looked at it either.

What do you think I actually dislike?

--Andy

[Elliot Temple]

On Dec 5, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Andy Dufresne <foxhunt1...@gmail.com> wrote

Never mind. I’m surprised you dislike the AS analysis. Possibly because you aren’t familiar enough with AS and don’t care about the book or Rand much? That could explain it.

If you wouldn’t like that sort of anlaysis for any book, even one you were highly interested in, then I think you’re wrong in a way that’s an important problem in your life (major obstacle to learning). Positive explanations of things are important.

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

[Andy Dufresne]

I agree it’s possible I don’t care enough about AS or Rand enough. I
read AS about 20 years ago and my (seemingly rather odd) reaction was
just a mildly positive “meh”. AS seems to polarize - people either
love it or hate it. I liked it enough to read some more Rand (FH, PWNI,
CTUI, VOS), and go to some IRL “Objectivish” meetings, and recommend
it to others. To the Rand haters that means I loved it. But by my own
standards I didn’t love it. I didn’t re-read it, and it didn’t
change my life or my thinking much. My best guess knowing what I know
now is that I didn’t understand very much of it.

BTW I read two other fiction books around the same time as AS. And for
the same reason: they were recommended by some Libertarians I interacted
with. The two other books were Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress” and L. Neil Smith’s “The Probability Broach”. I
remember enjoying both of those more than I enjoyed AS.

I’ve tried to re-read AS a couple of times since encountering FI and
didn’t get very far before getting bored and giving up.

> If you wouldn’t like that sort of anlaysis for any book, even one
> you were highly interested in, then I think you’re wrong in a way
> that’s an important problem in your life (major obstacle to
> learning). Positive explanations of things are important.

I think it being a more general (and important) problem is more likely
than it being limited to AS / Rand.

I am far more recently familiar with YESNO than AS. I’ve studied YESNO
some with serious intent, which I never did for AS. I fully intend to
resume studying YESNO in the relatively near future. I think mastering
YESNO is important to moving forward with bigger goals I have. Bottom
line, I care about YESNO as much as I know how to care about anything in
philosophy. And yet I didn’t like Alisa’s post.

I responded to Alisa’s post because I suspected my dislike could
indicate an important problem. Normally I just ignore things I find
boring.

I need to think about how to test if it is, in fact, an important
problem. I don’t currently have any ideas how to do that beyond just
continuing to discuss it.

--Andy

[Elliot Temple]

Alisa’s post had other factors involved, including that it didn’t explain a lot. Maybe it was too simple for you and said stuff you already knew.

I don’t regard Alisa’s post as similar to my AS analysis in general. They were just similar with respect to the category statement you gave (both were members).

> I responded to Alisa’s post because I suspected my dislike could indicate an important problem. Normally I just ignore things I find boring.
>
> I need to think about how to test if it is, in fact, an important problem. I don’t currently have any ideas how to do that beyond just continuing to discuss it.

I did a bunch of positive explanation of something else, which might interest you more, in my Reisman Marxism Socialism vids. Also the Goldratt vids are more explanation than criticism. The Popper Objective Knowledge ch. 1 vids have a fair amount of positive explanation but also more criticism. Links at:

https://elliottemple.com/store

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us