Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Jack comments on What is Bayesianism? - Less Wrong

81 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 26 February 2010 07:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (211)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jack 28 February 2010 06:00:23PM *  19 points [-]

Keeping my comments on topic:

may believe it likely that the government did something horrendous, but we realize the evidence is weak and circumstantial

Did you read the actual post about Bayesianism? Part of the point is you're not allowed to do this! One can't both think something is likely and think the evidence is weak and circumstantial! Holding a belief but not arguing for it because you know you don't have the evidence is a defining example of irrationality. If you don't think the government was involved, fine. But if you do you're obligated to defend your belief.

Off Topic: I'm not going to go through every one of your positions but... how long have you been researching the issue? I haven't looked up the answer for every single thing I've heard truthers argue- I don't have the time. But every time I do look something up I find that the truthers just have no idea what they're talking about. And some of the claims don't even pass the blush test. For example, your first "unanswered" question just sounds crazy! I mean, HOLY SHIT! the hijackers names aren't on the manifest! That is huge! And yet, of course they absolutely are on the flight manifests and, indeed, they flew under their own names. Indeed, we even have seating charts. For example, Mohamed Atta was in seat 8D. That's business class, btw.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 March 2010 07:26:28PM 6 points [-]

Ah, but... what are the odds that A HIJACKER WOULD FLY IN BUSINESS CLASS??!?

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2010 04:02:44AM *  2 points [-]

I hear business class gives better 'final meals'.

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 02 March 2010 05:49:42AM 3 points [-]

One can't both think something is likely and think the evidence is weak and circumstantial!

One definitely can. What else is one supposed to do when evidence is weak and circumstantial? Assign probabilities that sum to less than one?

Comment author: Jack 02 March 2010 05:54:22AM *  0 points [-]

If the evidence for a particular claim is weak and circumstantial one should assign that claim a low probability and other, competing, possibilities higher probabilities.

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 02 March 2010 06:06:08AM 2 points [-]

What if the evidence for those is also weak and circumstantial?

Or what if one had assigned that claim a very high prior probability?

Comment author: comedian 01 March 2010 06:04:56PM *  5 points [-]

For example, your first "unanswered" question just sounds crazy! I mean, HOLY SHIT! the hijackers names aren't on the manifest! That is huge! And yet, of course they absolutely are on the flight manifests and, indeed, they flew under their own names. Indeed, we even have seating charts. For example, Mohamed Atta was in seat 8D. That's business class, btw.

This is a crowning moment of awesome.

Comment author: Baruta07 10 November 2012 04:55:41PM *  2 points [-]

Warning: TvTropes may ruin your life, TvTropes should be used at your discretion, (most Tropers agree that excessive use of TvTropes may be conductive to cynicism and overvaluation of most major media, Tvtropes can cause such symptoms as: Becoming dangerously genre savvy, spending increasing amounts of time on TvTropes, and a general increase in the number of tropes you use in a conversation. Please think twice before using TvTropes)

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2010 06:48:50AM 1 point [-]

(Please consider, for the sake of wedrifid's productivity if nothing else, including at least the explicit use of the word 'trope' by way of warning when liking to that black hole of super-stimulus.)

Comment author: Jack 01 March 2010 07:18:17PM 1 point [-]

Does this mean if we're in a simulation written for entertainment I'm about to get killed off?

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2010 04:09:21AM 1 point [-]

But if you do you're obligated to defend your belief.

You're really not. You are not epistemicaly obliged to accept the challenge of another individual and subject your reasoning to their judgement in the form they desire. That is sometimes a useful thing to do and sometimes it is necessary for the purpose of persuasion. Of course, it's usually more practical to attack their beliefs instead. That tends to give far more status.

Comment author: Jack 02 March 2010 04:22:09AM 1 point [-]

No. Wrong! You totally are obligated.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2010 04:43:57AM 0 points [-]

Are you being facetious or not?

Comment author: Jack 02 March 2010 04:52:07AM 0 points [-]

Well, a little of both. You position doesn't seem like the kind of thing it makes sense to argue about so I figured I'd make my point through demonstration and let it rest.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2010 05:01:13AM 0 points [-]

and let it rest.

It seems you demonstrated my point.

Comment author: Jack 02 March 2010 05:16:47AM *  0 points [-]
  1. Normic questions just aren't the same as factual questions. There is no particular reason to expect eventual agreement on the former, even in principle, so ending conversations is just fine and to be expected.

  2. *Edit: Second point was based on a misunderstanding of the objection.

Comment deleted 02 March 2010 06:39:03AM *  [-]
Comment deleted 02 March 2010 08:35:03AM [-]
Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2010 09:02:10AM 0 points [-]

Hi Jack, thanks for that. I deleted my reply. I can see why you would object to that first interpretation. I too like to keep my 'winning' quite separate from my truth seeking and would join you in objecting to exhortations that people should explain reasons for their beliefs only for pragmatic purposes. It may be that my firm disapproval of mixing epistemic rationality with pragmatics was directed at you, not the mutual enemy so pardon me if that is the case.

I certainly support giving explanations and justifications for beliefs. The main reason I wouldn't support it as an obligation is for the kind of thing that you thought I was doing to you. Games can be played with norms and I don't want people who are less comfortable with filtering out those sort of games to feel obligated to change their beliefs if they cannot defend them according to the criteria of a persuader.