Daniel Drucker
@danieldrucker.bsky.social
Philosophy professor at UT Austin who thinks about attitudes, epistemology, and communication. https://www.danieldrucker.info/
That’s why weightings are so crucial, for them and for us ;)
December 12, 2025 at 3:02 PM
That’s why weightings are so crucial, for them and for us ;)
As well as the canons of every discipline…
December 12, 2025 at 2:59 PM
As well as the canons of every discipline…
It's not that I think something like that couldn't happen, it's just I think the rhetorical aspect can always be canceled "no, seriously" without changing the meaning, stuff like that.
December 11, 2025 at 10:46 PM
It's not that I think something like that couldn't happen, it's just I think the rhetorical aspect can always be canceled "no, seriously" without changing the meaning, stuff like that.
I think maybe that's only so on a fairly heavy-duty interpretation of them as 'what is'-style questions? I think sometimes you can just explain something with non-essential descriptions. "What's a capybara?" "Oh, it's your brother's favorite animal."
December 11, 2025 at 10:39 PM
I think maybe that's only so on a fairly heavy-duty interpretation of them as 'what is'-style questions? I think sometimes you can just explain something with non-essential descriptions. "What's a capybara?" "Oh, it's your brother's favorite animal."
Question, I'd say. Trouble ahead?
December 11, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Question, I'd say. Trouble ahead?
You think rhetorical questions are different from other questions semantically? I'd've thought that was all pragmatics.
December 11, 2025 at 10:26 PM
You think rhetorical questions are different from other questions semantically? I'd've thought that was all pragmatics.
Why wouldn't it have question semantics?
December 11, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Why wouldn't it have question semantics?
This is a big theme of Nancy Cartwright's work: www.amazon.com/Dappled-Worl...
The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
Amazon.com: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science: 9780521644112: Cartwright, Nancy: Books
www.amazon.com
December 10, 2025 at 5:12 PM
This is a big theme of Nancy Cartwright's work: www.amazon.com/Dappled-Worl...
(Sorry, responded too quickly. Yeah, I think this is the source of a fair bit of it: politics is a hobby for people, they like armchair quarterbacking, etc., and it can feel annoying for political scientists to say they're doing it wrong.)
December 10, 2025 at 4:57 PM
(Sorry, responded too quickly. Yeah, I think this is the source of a fair bit of it: politics is a hobby for people, they like armchair quarterbacking, etc., and it can feel annoying for political scientists to say they're doing it wrong.)
Right, but my point is: there are plausible generalizations to be had that apply to both. I'd _hope_ that statistical methods would confirm their observations. There's a fair bit of political science that checks up on observations of Plato, de Tocqueville, etc. in that way.
December 10, 2025 at 4:35 PM
Right, but my point is: there are plausible generalizations to be had that apply to both. I'd _hope_ that statistical methods would confirm their observations. There's a fair bit of political science that checks up on observations of Plato, de Tocqueville, etc. in that way.
In doing this, what are they doing?
December 10, 2025 at 4:33 PM
In doing this, what are they doing?
I think many of Plato's and Aristotle's observations of their own democracies plausibly apply also to ours, though which ones are of course contestable. And those are just two examples I know well. There's a reason political theory can form a canon in a reasonable way.
December 10, 2025 at 4:32 PM
I think many of Plato's and Aristotle's observations of their own democracies plausibly apply also to ours, though which ones are of course contestable. And those are just two examples I know well. There's a reason political theory can form a canon in a reasonable way.
There are generalizable, intelligible patterns that apply across time and space. I don't see political scientists as, in general, or even all that frequently (?), denying that as societies change people's politics change. Why should "polisci adjacent entrepreneurs" affect whether it's a science?
December 10, 2025 at 4:29 PM
There are generalizable, intelligible patterns that apply across time and space. I don't see political scientists as, in general, or even all that frequently (?), denying that as societies change people's politics change. Why should "polisci adjacent entrepreneurs" affect whether it's a science?
Do you think they're not successful at doing that (for some deep reason?), or is there more to be a science than that?
December 10, 2025 at 4:25 PM
Do you think they're not successful at doing that (for some deep reason?), or is there more to be a science than that?
I was just thinking something like: human political behavior is intelligible through various systematic and rigorous means, for example by receiving people's avowals of opinions and using statistical methods to infer overall prevalence, using causal inference tests to test for dynamics, etc.
December 10, 2025 at 4:25 PM
I was just thinking something like: human political behavior is intelligible through various systematic and rigorous means, for example by receiving people's avowals of opinions and using statistical methods to infer overall prevalence, using causal inference tests to test for dynamics, etc.
Are you assuming some kind of spiritualism? Aren't humans bound by natural laws?
December 10, 2025 at 4:20 PM
Are you assuming some kind of spiritualism? Aren't humans bound by natural laws?
Why aren't they scientists?
December 10, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Why aren't they scientists?
Clear case of bullshit from one of society's current best.
December 9, 2025 at 9:02 PM
Clear case of bullshit from one of society's current best.
To be clear, of course there are some really strong conceptions of the capacity of understanding that won't be inert, but skepticism about the basic cognitive relation of understanding (whatever that is, if there is one) seems to me to be inert.
December 9, 2025 at 4:08 PM
To be clear, of course there are some really strong conceptions of the capacity of understanding that won't be inert, but skepticism about the basic cognitive relation of understanding (whatever that is, if there is one) seems to me to be inert.
I'm not totally sure what to say. As I said, I think it's a presupposition of engaging in any kind of rational activity like science. Of course, you can be a skeptic about whatever you like; but I take it to be an "inert" skepticism like skepticism about hands, the kind science must ignore.
December 9, 2025 at 3:56 PM
I'm not totally sure what to say. As I said, I think it's a presupposition of engaging in any kind of rational activity like science. Of course, you can be a skeptic about whatever you like; but I take it to be an "inert" skepticism like skepticism about hands, the kind science must ignore.
Right, that's a different argument. I was just curious why comparative evidence is relevant, or that SCOTUS is pulling a trick by ignoring it.
December 9, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Right, that's a different argument. I was just curious why comparative evidence is relevant, or that SCOTUS is pulling a trick by ignoring it.
I agree we're discussing the cognitive relation, and we can doubt in any case that a human, or we, understand. That's why I'm trying to talk about capacities. Each of us knows we have the capacity for cognitive understanding, which enables phylogenetic inferences for other humans but not LLMs.
December 9, 2025 at 3:01 PM
I agree we're discussing the cognitive relation, and we can doubt in any case that a human, or we, understand. That's why I'm trying to talk about capacities. Each of us knows we have the capacity for cognitive understanding, which enables phylogenetic inferences for other humans but not LLMs.
Right, but if that's what the constitution says (not saying it is), then that's what they have to do. And if it says something else, they have to go with that. What I don't understand is why comparative evidence is relevant to that.
December 9, 2025 at 2:58 PM
Right, but if that's what the constitution says (not saying it is), then that's what they have to do. And if it says something else, they have to go with that. What I don't understand is why comparative evidence is relevant to that.
I'm not sure I understand this line of thought. Some constitutional systems are designed poorly; judges are bound to go with the design flaws until the electorate decides to change the bad design. I'm not sure I see why comparative evidence is all that relevant?
December 9, 2025 at 2:55 PM
I'm not sure I understand this line of thought. Some constitutional systems are designed poorly; judges are bound to go with the design flaws until the electorate decides to change the bad design. I'm not sure I see why comparative evidence is all that relevant?