= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Advancing Certainty - 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 (108)
Because Archimedes didn't have a microwave.
If by know, ChristianKl means having belief that is universal, necessary, and certain, then we don't know that we have more real information. Nothing short of deductive proof will achieve this kind of knowledge.
RobinZ seems to be (implicitly) using an argument similar to this:
If theory A is true, then technology B will work. Technology B works. ∴ Theory A is true.
This argument, while plausible, commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and so isn't deductively valid. This means that it fails to achieve the kind of knowledge that is universal, necessary, and certain.
If, on the other hand, you will settle for knowledge that is particular, contingent, and probable, then it is quite clear that we have made leaps and bounds in the amount of real information that we have access to. For instance, compare Wikipedia to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
I'm afraid I don't see what you're driving at. There's nothing in your comment that I disagree with, and nothing in my comment that you do not address correctly, but I thought my reply to ChristianKl was sufficient. Do you believe that it was not? If so, what is the question I should be responding to?
I was trying to point out (perhaps badly) that your argument succeeds assuming one definition of knowledge, but fails assuming the other definition.
It isn't clear to me which definition ChristianKl had in mind.
...right, that makes sense. Thank you.