@olivia @CyberneticForests Statement 3 is my favourite: similarity through obscurity.
I don't understand A, I don't understand B, therefore A is similar to B.
A fallacy that can't even be called logical.
@mapto @olivia @CyberneticForests a lot of Searle's thinking is like that.
@mapto yeah that one
@drj I'd be very curious if you would care to expand. I know too little about the context... if there's a single context about this particular topic at all.
Throughout the years, I've found pragmatics, and speech acts in particular, to be a very useful research framework. On the other hand, I find it difficult to convince myself about the methodology of theory of mind (would appreciate any literature anyone could suggest on the wider field). I'm just guessing what you're talking about?
