Chad Bush

Human Person

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@culturaltutor Stoked for this!!! Hoping it’s a whopping success 🤘🥳🤘

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

6/
One way to frame this: aesthetic knowledge may be objective, but fallible and open-ended. It grows the way other knowledge grows, through conjecture and criticism.
We propose aesthetic solutions. They face pressure from perception, coherence, material constraint, expressive success. Some survive and refine. Others don’t.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

5/
Pluralism says there are many aesthetic languages. True. But languages aren’t sealed worlds. They’re constrained by shared human cognition. That’s why translation is possible.
Aesthetic languages differ. The fact that we can learn to see excellence across them suggests shared structure beneath.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@visakanv @carnundotcom Absolute banger.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@ATRightMovies Mr. T looking fly 🤌🏻

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@dieworkwear Exceptional 🤘😎🤘

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@VintageRockN_85 Steve Winwood is criminally underrated. He’s a master.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@arjunkhemani Good ideas may need privacy, but democracy doesn’t survive in shadows. It survives in open institutions that expose and correct errors. Without accountability, privacy shields fraud as easily as truth.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@arjunkhemani Democracy doesn’t survive in shadows. It survives in open institutions where errors can be corrected. Bad actors already exploit loopholes; removing accountability only cloaks their damage. Privacy is vital, but without rule of law it becomes a shield for whoever hides best.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@itodd888 @DavidDeutschOxf As I understand it, measurement doesn’t collapse the system. It branches. All outcomes persist. Progress comes from criticism, not collapse.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@DavidDeutschOxf Freedom = the ability to correct errors. Error correction allows for moral progress.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

Explanatory power. HTV and reach are visible in the structure of an explanation before testing and open to criticism immediately. They don’t replace falsification but guide it. A myth is easy to vary with little reach, so not worth testing. Relativity is hard to vary and far-reaching, so it is.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@AyakiHensa @Hello_World @DavidDeutschOxf HTV and reach don’t collapse into falsification. They are not redundant cues but explanatory features that make a theory more open to criticism. Falsification is the method, but HTV/reach explain why some theories are worth criticizing while others are not.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

Through criticism. Success never proves truth, which is why the method is critical testing. Newton and Einstein both gave hard to vary explanations with reach, but they clash. Einstein survived refutations Newton could not (Mercury’s orbit, light bending). Fallibilism means neither is justified, but criticism reveals which has greater reach and fewer errors, making Einstein our best guess.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

HTV is not a “no-miracle” or coherence argument. It never claims that predictive success or colligation of facts justifies truth. Popper and Miller already showed why that move fails. Deutsch’s point is fallibilist: all theories are conjectural and contain errors. What makes some explanations better is that they are hard to vary and have greater reach. Hard to vary means they cannot be arbitrarily adjusted without losing their explanatory power. Reach means they explain more than the narrow set of observations they were invented to fit. Those qualities make theories open to criticism and resistant to ad hoc patching. HTV is about explanatory quality within critical rationalism, not about providing justification or probability of truth.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

@Plinz Fits perfectly with Deutsch’s idea of anti-rational memes.

[Chad Bush @ChadBush]

Preference is what you happen to like.
Quality is how good our explanation is of why something is good; it’s one that survives criticism and is hard to vary.

By that standard, I can enjoy “slop” while still explaining why it’s bad art. Calling that ‘Puritanism’ in art would be like calling it Puritanism in science to reject bad explanations that people enjoy believing.

In both cases, objectivity means improving explanations through open criticism, not imposing tastes, but correcting errors.