= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on What is Bayesianism? - 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 (211)
Are you being facetious or not?
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.
It seems you demonstrated my point.
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.
*Edit: Second point was based on a misunderstanding of the objection.
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.