---
title: Notes | Tutorial 32
layout: post
date: 2020-08-26 11:00
parent: Tutorial Notes
tutorial_link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTCKfMnNZgU
lesson: 32
---

## LW discussion for treeification

- [LW Thread Start](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bsteawFidASBXiywa/misc-raw-responses-to-a-tract-of-critical-rationalism?commentId=rbXMXWgefgLZqg2Lf#u2j37Nx2TRGdP9unC)
- [LW Thread Deepest Comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bsteawFidASBXiywa/misc-raw-responses-to-a-tract-of-critical-rationalism?commentId=wbMYtA55JJrDgh2Ck#u2j37Nx2TRGdP9unC)

## Tutorial

- <https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bsteawFidASBXiywa/misc-raw-responses-to-a-tract-of-critical-rationalism?commentId=nfWqk8KuCW4i9JDgd>

can explain what I'm doing; "I'm not really sure what your point is, here are some adjacent points/thoughts to help us get moving"

keep awareness of how well the things I'm saying would form a debate tree (and if it's intended to)

keep track of which are good tree replies and which are general; label each

47min - Popper example, better to do minimal example needed to make the point; don't use an example without extra stuff not required.

50min -

```
[;]
    I'm not suggesting anything I said was a reason to think both theories wrong,
    [;]
        and
            I listed it because it was a possibility I didn't mention in the other paragraphs
            it's a bit of a trivial case for this stuff
        i.e. if we come up with a reason both are wrong then we don't have to worry about them anymore if we can't answer that criticism
```

```
am
    I
    not
    suggesting
        that
            anything
                that
                    I said was a reason to think
                        that
                            both theories [are] wrong
```

really badly constructed sentence

alt: I'm not [trying to advocate]/[advocating] skepticism

66min

72min

trying to sort out mess

- high effort to start with better than trying to clean it up later
  - psychological reasons: once discussion seems lower quality ppl often get careless or give up, and attitude issues get in the way

78 min - topic sentence issue; actual point is sentence 2 not sentence 1. not a direct q or request; deemphasises it, and means I'm expecting TAG to guess what's necessary.

not highlighting the response was inadequate - there's a need to backtrack.

point is that my previous msg is still unanswered and it needs to be answered; that is unstated, though

97 min - next conversation: make an idea tree as I go along

100 min - (a few min before hand) the issue around "The relevance is that CR can't guarantee that any given dispute is resolveable."