UPB criticism by Luke Muehlhauser...

[Fletch]

Have Luke Muehlhauser's (Common Sense Atheism) criticisms of UPB been addressed anywhere? I searched and didn't find anything.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=75

 

[Rudd-O DragonFear]

Guy criticizes UPB but cannot even classify things in the correct categories (e.g. he says that Stef allegedly claims moral values exist, but the verb "exist" doet not apply to intangibles, yet he does not notice this in his post).

Reading that critique is like watching a (not particularly gifted, but truly self-oblivious) first grader try to correct a calculus professor. It is cringeworthy. UPB is not magic, and yes, it is hard... but this guy can't even get categories right. What are the odds that he can produce a valid refutation of UPB?

What we have here is a case of someone who lacks the necessary knowledge to understand UPB, doesn't know that he doesn't know, has a big ego, and as a consequence of his fundamental ignorance and a bit of Dunning-Kruger, he ends up being in way over his head, writing nonsense.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

The foundational problem I see with this review and with a lot of arguments against UPB is that he doesn't understand what UPB means. To wit: "So after reading the book, I still have no idea what a Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) is."  This statement renders the review pointless, since one cannot rationally argue against that which he doesn't understand. If I were to read a book on string theory, finish it with no understanding of string theory and then attempt to formulate a refutation based on my admitted misunderstanding, would that seem rational?

 

Perhaps to his credit (or not), he makes the same wrong assumption most people do about UPB:

 

"If I argue against UPB, I have not shown a preference for truth
over falsehood, only a preference against UPB (for example, I might
still prefer to lie to the Nazis about some Jews I am hiding.) Even if I
did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because many other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood."

 

He's not arguing against universally preferable behavior, he's arguing against individually preferred behavior and thus, is slaying a strawman... In the entirety of his review.

 

[Guest Exceptionalist]

 Guy criticizes UPB but cannot even classify things in the correct categories (e.g. he says that Stef allegedly claims moral values exist, but the verb "exist" doet not apply to intangibles, yet he does not notice this in his post).

 

 

Existence in the realm of concepts rather than existence in an objective sense. Looks like nitpicking to me.

 

Reading that critique is like watching a (not particularly gifted, but truly self-oblivious) first grader try to correct a calculus professor. It is cringeworthy. UPB is not magic, and yes, it is hard... but this guy can't even get categories right. What are the odds that he can produce a valid refutation of UPB?

 

 

Your example wasn't exactly enlightened in that matter. Reading this paragraph is like watching a Nirvana fan worshipping his idol.

 

What we have here is a case of someone who lacks the necessary knowledge to understand UPB

 

 

Nuff said, the rest is just unnecessary rambling.

[Wesley]

Existence in the realm of concepts rather than existence in an objective sense. Looks like nitpicking to me.

 

Um, well concepts do not exist. That is what makes them concepts and not something like energy or matter.

 

This is covered in the intro to philosophy series.

[PatrickC]

The reason this critique is not taken seriously, is mainly because of this:

 

"So after reading the book, I still have no idea what a Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) is."

 

Which means anything meaningful he may have to say will be lost on a faulty understanding from the start.

[TDB]

I agree with many of the criticisms. But given that, I still want to know whether that means Stef is just wrong, or Stef is onto something but needed a few critical pre-publication reviewers and a good copy editor to help him clarify his meaning. That is, until I really understand UPB, I don't know whether I think it is right, flawed but fixable, or just wrong. The most immediate problem with the book is that it is disorganized and confusing. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong.

[PatrickC]

The most immediate problem with the book is that it is disorganized and confusing. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong.

 

Then put your questions into a fresh thread, rather than chasing old threads which have mostly finished with muddled questions or criticisms. It's difficult to know what exactly your having difficulty understanding.

[TDB]

Then put your questions into a fresh thread, rather than chasing old threads which have mostly finished with muddled questions or criticisms. It's difficult to know what exactly your having difficulty understanding.

I will ask questions when I'm ready. Actually, I asked back in March, got no response to speak of. That may be because I was so far off the mark. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/35664-upb-faq-attempt/ I should probably update that again, my understanding has changed. Or it may be that no one who actually understands UPB is willing to discuss it on the forum much any more. Stef seems to be disappointed with discussions of UPB on the forum. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/23092-debating-upb/ My point in responding to this thread was to say that I thought the criticisms raised by the person mentioned by OP where accurate in some cases but shallow and unimportant. The critic took only enough time to find some things that looked like errors to him, did not bother to understand the basic idea Stef has. I think some of the identified errors are actual errors, others are misunderstandings on the part of the critic. I don't care if the expression of the ideas is imperfect, I care whether the ideas work or not, and none of the criticisms helped me out with that.