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 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.