What is P and -P?

[Terrapin Station]

Enough that the paper wouldn't be just thrown into the trash by the journal, and enough to at least have the equivalent knowledge/widsom/experience of someone formally qualified to teach it. Enough to not just post rambling, inane, often incoherent stuff, the errors of which could be spotted by any junior undergraduate, at least.

I am not interested in publication. I am interested in application.

Nobody in the world was "qualified to teach" distributed systems theory, because we invented the systems before the theory was written.

In so far as it's my experience - that's always the order of events. Invention, then publication.

You should be interested in competence. It's a field with a long history and a deep body of theory built upon that long history.

[Skepdick]

You should be interested in competence. It's a field with a long history and a deep body of theory built upon that long history.

Competence is not theoretical. There's more to be done about it than said about it - practice, practice, practice. And until you acquire this "competence" thing it's far easier to avoid stupidity than to seek brilliance.

Some call it the Green Lumber Fallacy: what works in practice may not match our stories of why or how it works.

To my understanding language does not work like that - it's a lossy communication medium.

[Terrapin Station]

You should be interested in competence. It's a field with a long history and a deep body of theory built upon that long history.

Competence is not theoretical. There's more to be done about it than said about it - practice, practice, practice. And until you acquire this "competence" thing it's far easier to avoid stupidity than to seek brilliance.

Some call it the Green Lumber Fallacy: what works in practice may not match our stories of why or how it works.

To my understanding language does not work like that - it's a lossy communication medium.

Competence in philosophy requires familiarity with its history, with major historical works, with the history and development of various ideas.

[Eodnhoj7]

You should be interested in competence. It's a field with a long history and a deep body of theory built upon that long history.

Competence is not theoretical. There's more to be done about it than said about it - practice, practice, practice. And until you acquire this "competence" thing it's far easier to avoid stupidity than to seek brilliance.

Some call it the Green Lumber Fallacy: what works in practice may not match our stories of why or how it works.

To my understanding language does not work like that - it's a lossy communication medium.

Competence in philosophy requires familiarity with its history, with major historical works, with the history and development of various ideas.

So the history of the laws of logic determines one's competency in them?

[Skepdick]

Competence in philosophy requires familiarity with its history, with major historical works, with the history and development of various ideas.

The trouble with this conception of "competence" is that it's virtually impossible for an outsider to easily verify it. And it is equally impossible for an outsider to determine "incompetence". It's a closed system with a socially constructed/validated notion of "competence", that is not empirically falsifiable by outsiders.

Imagine I told you that you are not in a position to assert the incompetence of your plumber - because his peers deem him competent. Even though your toilet continues to leak after his 3rd attempt to fix it. But he is familiar with the history of plumbing, all major historical developments and passed his plumber's exam with an A+!

This conception of "competence" shoves philosophy in the same corner as historians and accountants. Diligent record-keepers.

In a very round-about way, I am hinting at the P vs NP problem in computer science. The ability to solve a problem (however long the solution takes, and however many resources it requires) versus the ability to rapidly verify the correctness of the solution.

If verification is not cheaper than the solution itself - society cannot possibly give a shit to check your work.

[Terrapin Station]

Competence is not theoretical. There's more to be done about it than said about it - practice, practice, practice. And until you acquire this "competence" thing it's far easier to avoid stupidity than to seek brilliance.

Some call it the Green Lumber Fallacy: what works in practice may not match our stories of why or how it works.

To my understanding language does not work like that - it's a lossy communication medium.

Competence in philosophy requires familiarity with its history, with major historical works, with the history and development of various ideas.

So the history of the laws of logic determines one's competency in them?

Competency in logic definitely requires familiarity with its history, yes.

[Terrapin Station]

The trouble with this conception of "competence" is that it's virtually impossible for an outsider to easily verify it.

That's not trouble with it, it's a feature of it. Competency in a field isn't a context-free objective fact. It's a context-dependent subjective fact (keeping in mind that "subjective" there is referring to that fact that it's mind-dependent). One can't make the determination in question without being familiar with the context and its conventions/norms.

[Skepdick]

That's not trouble with it, it's a feature of it. Competency in a field isn't a context-free objective fact.

It's a context-dependent subjective fact (keeping in mind that "subjective" there is referring to that fact that it's mind-dependent). One can't make the determination in question without being familiar with the context and its conventions/norms.

If a field of "competence" has any practical application, then "competency" is not an objective fact, but it is a testable consequence. Competence is demonstrable.

Either you can get to the Moon in a man-made vehicle or you can't.

[Terrapin Station]

That's not trouble with it, it's a feature of it. Competency in a field isn't a context-free objective fact.

It's a context-dependent subjective fact (keeping in mind that "subjective" there is referring to that fact that it's mind-dependent). One can't make the determination in question without being familiar with the context and its conventions/norms.

If a field of "competence" has any practical application, then "competency" is not an objective fact, but it is a testable consequence. Competence is demonstrable.

Either you can get to the Moon in a man-made vehicle or you can't.

It's testable with respect to the norms/conventions of the field, sure. Again, that's not possible for an outsider to do. Familiarity with the norms/conventions is required, to a point where that would make the person no longer an outsider.

[Skepdick]

It's testable with respect to the norms/conventions of the field, sure.

So teach me how to test, without teaching me the field.

I can teach you how to verify "landed on the Moon".
I can even teach you how to verify scientific/medical/moral? progress: Humans longevity has doubled in the last 200 years.

Again, that's not possible for an outsider to do. Familiarity with the norms/conventions is required, to a point where that would make the person no longer an outsider.

That's why it's bullshit. There's no external accountability.

And it fails the ELI5 test.

[Terrapin Station]

That's why it's bullshit. There's no external accountability.

Which would be required for it to not be bullshit because?

[Skepdick]

Which would be required for it to not be bullshit because?

Because without some form positive of negative feedback, it's just an echo chamber.

A vicious circularity.

[Terrapin Station]

Which would be required for it to not be bullshit because?

Because without some form positive of negative feedback, it's just an echo chamber.

A vicious circularity.

You're defining "negative feedback" to necessarily have to do with assessment by outsiders?

Also, "just an echo chamber" would be a problem because?

[Skepdick]

You're defining "negative feedback" to necessarily have to do with assessment by outsiders?

I am defining "feedback" as any external input.

Positive feedback says "do more of that".
Negative feedback says "do less of that".

Negative feedback in science is usually called "falsification".

[Terrapin Station]

You're defining "negative feedback" to necessarily have to do with assessment by outsiders?

I am defining "feedback" as any external input.

Positive feedback says "do more of that".
Negative feedback says "do less of that".

Okay, but why are you defining feedback in this context as an external input?