Read on Twitter
Wanna talk about @LetterWiki. IF you have not traipsed thru the website u should. The concept is unique—at least in contemporary sound-bite times. @IonaItalia @Ry_Nomad @JacksonAEdwards @peternlimberg,
@Ideopunk @DayneRathbone @ClydeRathbone @PsychPLockwood @ThatsBSPodcast 1/18
@Ideopunk @DayneRathbone @ClydeRathbone @PsychPLockwood @ThatsBSPodcast 1/18
Basically, 2 individuals engage in an intense one-on-one dialectic on subjects ranging from Crispr & gene editing to gun control & abortion. The unique format allows for a substantive exchange that one seldom finds anywhere else. 2/18
One can scroll through the conversations –close to 200 thus far—to find one that floats one’s boat. Then, simply subscribe to conversations of interest & a notice of each new letter will be emailed if desired. 3/18 https://letter.wiki/conversations
But I want to focus on ONE conversation—Convo 140: “On pragmatism & Truth” between Jordan Myers [ @ThatsBSPodcast] & Patrick Lockwood [ @PsychPLockwood ]. I meant to do it a while ago but—contrary to appearances--Twitter ain’t my main job.
4/18
4/18
I chose this conversation because its esoteric nature intrigues me. Renders it somewhat less tendentious than race/gender effluvium. Even better, it's subject matter challenges me to traipse off the beaten path. 5/18
Mostly I thought observing my good friend Patrick in the dialectic trenches would gift entertainment AND ponder fodder. I was NOT disappointed. Both engaged civilly and substantively. 6/18 https://letter.wiki/conversation/140
I merely plan to free form my impressions cuz at the end of the day, my twitter experience largely rests in my hands. Cuz I can. Make of them what one will. 7/18
Jordan begins w/his statement of the subject: Epistemic Pragmatism & gives the textbook def: "that which brings forth utility or value is objectively real or true in a non-socially constructed way." He disagrees, btw. 8/18
Patrick defines it this way: "Pragmatism means that the 'Truth' was that which was effectively achieving an outcome in any given circumstance" & introduces an X/Y proposition: 9/ 18
"First, if a variable X ‘effectively’[…] achieves a result Y, then it must be small t true that the variable resulted in the outcome. Second, if the outcome did indeed occur, then that is a "fact" of nature. 10/18
Jordan finds it useful to make more of a distinction between true and useful & teases them apart w/an example of a friend acting as IF his friend has a disease-- whether true or not-- saying it may be pragmatic but not Big-T Truth. 11/18
Patrick, arguing for evolutionary pragmatism, slots a “could” into the frame-- "my friend could have the disease, and avoiding potential exposure to disease is good for my survival"— & deems it both True AND useful. 12/18
Gonna stop the play-by-play w/Jordan’s intriguing porcupine example in his premise 3: "Porcupines can throw their quills." He deems it ”Not True but Useful” cuz it could keep a child from danger. 13/18
That damn porcupine analogy pricked me w/its quills. Got under my skin. Here's why [I think].IF one wants to keep a child away from porcupines, there r any # of things to say that ARE true & serve the same utility while avoiding the downside of an untruth.Use ur imagination!14/18
Telling a child an untrue thing about science has negative implications for a future in which they find out the truth. Doing so purposely is worse cuz it impacts trust negatively & can set up an overly-authority-skeptical loop in a kid. I know cuz I WAS that kid. 15/18
Doing so in error is understandable. Easily forgivable. However, the error has a far more negative impact if it emanates from faulty Dunning-Kruger-like wiring that prompts stating things one doesn’t know w/authority that one doesn’t have. Or from an authoritarian impulse. 16/18
Did u know???? 17/18 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/porcupine-quills-can-kill-180947657/
Hope this porcupine-laden conversation pricks ur curiosity enough to read the whole discussion. It’s a great template worth emulating and the ending’s concession is a jewel in the dialectic crown. Find out why. 18/18
