= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Cyan comments on LW/OB Quotes - Fall 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (48)
Could you expand on that? (Maybe the open thread would be the best place.)
wedrifid is alluding to Popper's notion of falsifiability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Note that wedrifid's phrase "that a model could [hypothetically] be surprised by the facts" corresponds to "falsifiability", but EY's phrase "a model is surprised by the facts" actually corresponds better to "falsified".
Popper would say that falsifiability is a good thing and falsified is a bad thing (for models), so both wedrifid and EY are good Popperians.
Thanks.
(Roughly) what John said.
It really depends what sort of credits I've been charged with granting.
Agree. Being falsified means you're at least not "not even wrong" or "lacking in truth-condition", which is credit of a sort, but not really the sort we should be aspiring toward.
Gotcha.