Well, bait and switch is a common, special, sub-category of the very topic, which is: the map between how we (artificially) cut up the world versus how the world actually is. What Alexander was pointing out was exactly that. Of course, when it's our preemptively registered ontology that's being denied/neglected, we tend to use derogatory terms like "bait and switch". But when it's the fidelity of the others' ontology that's being challenged, we tend to be a bit sanctimonious.
Aaronson's post, being largely about quackery/authority follows from Alexander's because we often (always?) derive our ontology from some arbitrary world-cutter [†] we found laying on the ground when we were born/growing. As I commented before in my response to Eric's comment about figuring out who amongst us talks just to hear themselves speak versus those who have something potentially interesting to say, I have to worry if I am *also* a "kibitzer and a dilettante", with only cheap tricks like bait and switch, etc. ... and if so, what does that mean? [†] Meant to allude to a cookie dough cutter. On 7/26/19 10:34 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I suppose Glen is claiming that if abuse can be redefined outside of physical abuse, then the referent of the abuse can be defined outside of species and thus the killed cells from the physical abuse have a more severe outcome than the social consequences of non-physical but serious abuse amongst humans. (Although I suppose stress responses from the non-physical abuses could result in cell death too.) Fine. I call that bait and switch.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
