I was getting Pontypool Changes Everything vibes but absolutely, hard agree

Concepts untethered! Congratulations, the chatbot made you sound like you have word aphasia, and now you’ve become another vector in the dissemination of the language/concept virus!

This is why you’ll never get published in the NYT

Yeah but I can offhandedly name-drop to look cool amongst a small set of peers instead of explaining things so non-philosophers can understand, like you did bsky.app/profile/nate...

Ah okay yeah I agree. It’s so embarrassing!

I like this because wherever you land in the lottery of existence, whatever’s most popular (locally? globally?) gets to be your ontological baggage, no matter how many suitcases you have to carry or how garish you think the patterns look

Well, it’s Gellner’s refutation of the Oxford paradigm case argument, yeah. Do you mean the NYT column?

This is like inverting Carnap’s work on explication of concepts, so the delineation of concepts just is, I dunno, whatever’s popular at any time, because a lot of people use them that way, or whatever

You don’t go for family resemblance if you’re looking for a normative approach! You don’t go for family resemblance as your first port of call! You don’t go for family resemblance unless you can make a really strong case other approaches are fundamentally conceptually messed up!

I’m so glad I’m not the only one that read the book and whose main takeaway was it was a mess

People need to hear the truth!

Negging the text autocomplete bot with my advanced degree in chatbot prompting to get the answer that confirms my priors actually shows how smart I am by pulling a Mr Magoo at the airport

Why the UK is a failed state: they screwed up my order at McDondald’s

Same! Would love to give it a read and do the ‘well I dunno if a relatively educated philosopher that’s operating outside their AOE can follow the signposting here’ thing, which is also important!

This book. Bonkers stuff: a complete butchering of Popper, no engagement with post-Popper approaches, goes down several intellectual cul-de-sacs based on justificationist approaches (e.g. ‘science’ is justified) that somehow doesn’t deal with the core problem of protocol sentences, induction, etc.