On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> This just says "Thud". To use a Hofstadterian analogy, it's like:
> Hofstadter presents a number of answers, including:
> wyz (the best)
> and one, which Hofstadter says "definitely presents a very loud 'Thud!'",
I realize that you are most likely doing an astute analysis or synopsis here. I also realize that I haven't read the background material required to make the correlations.
If *I* haven't read it, just taking a number out of a hat, that means perhaps 7 out of 10 people on the list haven't read it.
For productive discussions, you simply *must* ground your comments in reference points that people can read and say oh, xyd = Hofstadter pg 201 in book XXX YYY.
Sub-disciplines of science have their own unique language and one must constantly wrestle with the tendencies to fall back on those languages or explain understandings or details in a way that discourages general access.
Science must be understandable by the average individual to be useful and you must provide pointers to make that understanding as simple as possible.