Applied ethics is still ethical theory, itâs just that applied ethics is about specific ethical topics, e.g. vegetarianism, whereas normative ethics is about systems of ethics, e.g. utilitarianism. If you wanted to distinguish theory from practice and be absolutely clear, youâd have to say something like ethical practices.
I prefer to say epistemic practices rather than epistemics (which I dislike) or epistemology (which I like, but is more ambiguous).
I donât think the analogy between epistemics and athletics is obvious, and I would be surprised if even 1% of the people who have ever used the term epistemics have made that connection before.
I am very wary of terms that are never defined or explained. It is easy for people to assume they know what they mean, that thereâs a shared meaning everyone agrees on. I really donât know what epistemics means and Iâm only assuming it means epistemic practices.
I fear that thereâs a realistic chance if I started to ask different people to define epistemics, we would quickly uncover that different people have different and incompatible definitions. For example, some people might think of it as epistemic practices and some people might think of it as epistemological theory.
I am more anti-jargon and anti-acronyms than a lot of people. Really common acronyms, like AI or LGBT, or acronyms where the acronym is far better known than the spelled-out version, like NASA or DVD, are, of course, absolutely fine. PASTA and ASARA are egregious.
Iâm such an anti-acronym fanatic I even spell out artificial general intelligence (AGI) and large language model (LLM) whenever I use them for the first time in a post.
My biggest problem with jargon is that nobody knows what it means. The in-group who is supposed to know what it means also doesnât know what it means. They think they do, but theyâre just fooling themselves. Ask them probing questions, and theyâll start to disagree and fight about the definition. This isnât always true, but itâs true often enough to make me suspicious of jargon.
Jargon can be useful, but it should be defined, and you should give examples of it. If a common word or phrase exists that is equally good or better, then you should use that instead. For example, James Herbert recently made the brilliant comment that instead of âtruthseekingâ â an inscrutable term that, for all I know, would turn out to have no definite meaning if I took the effort to try to get multiple people to try to define it â an older term used on effectivealtruism.org was âa scientific mindsetâ, which is nearly self-explanatory. Science is a well-known and well-defined concept. Truthseeking â whatever that means â is not.
This isnât just true for a subculture like the effective altruist community, itâs also true for a field like academic philosophy (maybe philosophy is unique in this regard among academic fields). You wouldnât believe the number of times people disagree about the basic meaning of terms. (For example, do sentience and consciousness mean the same thing, or two different things? What about autonomy and freedom?) This has made me so suspicious that shared jargon actually isnât understood in the same way by the people who are using it.
Just avoiding jargon isnât the whole trick (for one, itâs often impossible or undesirable), itâs got to be a multi-pronged approach.
Youâve really got to give examples of things. Examples are probably more important than definitions. Think about when youâre trying to learn a card game, a board game, or a parlour game (like charades). The instructions can be very precise and accurate, but reading the instructions out loud often makes half the table go googly-eyed and start shaking their heads. If the instructions contain even one example, or if you can watch one round of play, thatâs so much more useful than a precise âdefinitionâ of the game. Examples, examples, examples.
Also, just say it simpler. Speak plainly. Instead of ASANA, why not AI doing AI? Instead of PASTA, why not AI scientists and engineers? Itâs so much cleaner, and simpler, and to the point.
Applied ethics is still ethical theory, itâs just that applied ethics is about specific ethical topics, e.g. vegetarianism, whereas normative ethics is about systems of ethics, e.g. utilitarianism. If you wanted to distinguish theory from practice and be absolutely clear, youâd have to say something like ethical practices.
I prefer to say epistemic practices rather than epistemics (which I dislike) or epistemology (which I like, but is more ambiguous).
I donât think the analogy between epistemics and athletics is obvious, and I would be surprised if even 1% of the people who have ever used the term epistemics have made that connection before.
I am very wary of terms that are never defined or explained. It is easy for people to assume they know what they mean, that thereâs a shared meaning everyone agrees on. I really donât know what epistemics means and Iâm only assuming it means epistemic practices.
I fear that thereâs a realistic chance if I started to ask different people to define epistemics, we would quickly uncover that different people have different and incompatible definitions. For example, some people might think of it as epistemic practices and some people might think of it as epistemological theory.
I am more anti-jargon and anti-acronyms than a lot of people. Really common acronyms, like AI or LGBT, or acronyms where the acronym is far better known than the spelled-out version, like NASA or DVD, are, of course, absolutely fine. PASTA and ASARA are egregious.
Iâm such an anti-acronym fanatic I even spell out artificial general intelligence (AGI) and large language model (LLM) whenever I use them for the first time in a post.
My biggest problem with jargon is that nobody knows what it means. The in-group who is supposed to know what it means also doesnât know what it means. They think they do, but theyâre just fooling themselves. Ask them probing questions, and theyâll start to disagree and fight about the definition. This isnât always true, but itâs true often enough to make me suspicious of jargon.
Jargon can be useful, but it should be defined, and you should give examples of it. If a common word or phrase exists that is equally good or better, then you should use that instead. For example, James Herbert recently made the brilliant comment that instead of âtruthseekingâ â an inscrutable term that, for all I know, would turn out to have no definite meaning if I took the effort to try to get multiple people to try to define it â an older term used on effectivealtruism.org was âa scientific mindsetâ, which is nearly self-explanatory. Science is a well-known and well-defined concept. Truthseeking â whatever that means â is not.
This isnât just true for a subculture like the effective altruist community, itâs also true for a field like academic philosophy (maybe philosophy is unique in this regard among academic fields). You wouldnât believe the number of times people disagree about the basic meaning of terms. (For example, do sentience and consciousness mean the same thing, or two different things? What about autonomy and freedom?) This has made me so suspicious that shared jargon actually isnât understood in the same way by the people who are using it.
Just avoiding jargon isnât the whole trick (for one, itâs often impossible or undesirable), itâs got to be a multi-pronged approach.
Youâve really got to give examples of things. Examples are probably more important than definitions. Think about when youâre trying to learn a card game, a board game, or a parlour game (like charades). The instructions can be very precise and accurate, but reading the instructions out loud often makes half the table go googly-eyed and start shaking their heads. If the instructions contain even one example, or if you can watch one round of play, thatâs so much more useful than a precise âdefinitionâ of the game. Examples, examples, examples.
Also, just say it simpler. Speak plainly. Instead of ASANA, why not AI doing AI? Instead of PASTA, why not AI scientists and engineers? Itâs so much cleaner, and simpler, and to the point.