Fallible Ideas e-mail list

Discussion:

Alan

2013-05-08 21:10:43 UTC

Elliot Temple has started a new general philosophy e-mail list called the Fallible ideas list

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fallible-ideas/

The guidlines are here and Elliot is willing to consider suggestions for improvements

http://fallibleideas.com/discussion/guidelines

The point of the FI list is to provide a single list where one can post anything about philosophy and so on without having to worry about whether it is on topic. So you could post on political philosophy, moral philosophy, the multiverse, epistemology, evolution and so on without worrying about it being on-topic.

Alan

hibbsa

2013-05-09 12:35:40 UTC

Permalink

Post by Alan
Elliot Temple has started a new general philosophy e-mail list called the Fallible ideas list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fallible-ideas/
The guidlines are here and Elliot is willing to consider suggestions for improvements
http://fallibleideas.com/discussion/guidelines
The point of the FI list is to provide a single list where one can post anything about philosophy and so on without having to worry about whether it is on topic. So you could post on political philosophy, moral philosophy, the multiverse, epistemology, evolution and so on without worrying about it being on-topic.
Alan

Among the reasons Elliot gives for this new list:

"I think it's confusing to people to use a list named after a particular book as a general purpose discussion place, especially after the author turned his back on the community. And it's also confusing/burdensome to have to join a bunch of different lists to not miss discussion."

This appears to be a gross distortion of what happened and why, and who it did and didn't involve. Has David Deutsch ever issued a statement turning his back on any community? Elliot has issued a statement apparently turning his back on David Deutsch.

Has Elliot issued a further statement asking the 'community' which of the 'sides' that so far only Elliot has made any reference to, wants to be on?

Why hasn't Elliot explained the history in plain accurate language? Does Elliot want to mislead people? Is this as dishonest as it appears? Or is something missing from what I'm seeing that would explain it?

Why hasn't the explanation been: "I have made some public allegations against Deutsch about Justifictionalism and other shortcomings which I didn't elaborate on, which Deutsch has responded to here, here and here. I am unsatisfied with his answers for this, this and this reason, and believe my core argument here, here and here has not been addressed. I am therefore attempting to go my own way and bring the community that largely came to my lists because of the association with the work of David Deutsch with me. Please read the history and make the important decision whether my arguments were specious or Deutsch's responses to my arguments were, and vote with your feet. Please note this split idea is entirely due to my activism, and David Deutsch has never suggested or hinted in any form he is turning his back on any section of the community"

Isn't that a fairer and more accurate version of what is taking place?

auvenj

2013-05-11 14:50:50 UTC

Permalink

Post by hibbsa

"I think it's confusing to people to use a list named after a particular book as a general purpose discussion place, especially after the author turned his back on the community. And it's also confusing/burdensome to have to join a bunch of different lists to not miss discussion."
This appears to be a gross distortion of what happened and why, and who it did and didn't involve. Has David Deutsch ever issued a statement turning his back on any community? Elliot has issued a statement apparently turning his back on David Deutsch.
Has Elliot issued a further statement asking the 'community' which of the 'sides' that so far only Elliot has made any reference to, wants to be on?
Why hasn't Elliot explained the history in plain accurate language? Does Elliot want to mislead people? Is this as dishonest as it appears? Or is something missing from what I'm seeing that would explain it?
Why hasn't the explanation been: "I have made some public allegations against Deutsch about Justifictionalism and other shortcomings which I didn't elaborate on, which Deutsch has responded to here, here and here. I am unsatisfied with his answers for this, this and this reason, and believe my core argument here, here and here has not been addressed. I am therefore attempting to go my own way and bring the community that largely came to my lists because of the association with the work of David Deutsch with me. Please read the history and make the important decision whether my arguments were specious or Deutsch's responses to my arguments were, and vote with your feet. Please note this split idea is entirely due to my activism, and David Deutsch has never suggested or hinted in any form he is turning his back on any section of the community"

I've criticized Elliot plenty for insider/outsider mentality, camps, "sides", etc. in the past. I will do so in the future when/if I think it's valid.

But in this case, I think he's just starting a new list. He's not destroying the old lists or telling people not to participate in them or otherwise hobbling them. He's not asking people to take sides - at least not me. If he was I can assure you that I would have no part of it.

It's common to start new lists, and it's common to advertise them on existing lists where people who might be interested in the new list are already subscribed. I see no problem with that.

However I think you are right to point out the flaws in Elliot's statement that the author turned his back on the community. DD never posted very often, people's time and interest in posting waxes and wanes naturally, and as far as I know DD has not unsubscribed or publicly renounced any of the lists around his books. So I don't think that was a correct or fair thing for Elliot to say.

--Jason