prase comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 March 2010 11:23PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (1329)
Tags: skepticism contrarianism

Comments (1329)

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

Comment author: prase 24 March 2010 07:28:42PM 0 points [-]

Well, the atheism/theism issue is a decent example of a situation where it's possible to be reasonably confident in a position without exhaustive scientific studies of the matter. And indeed, even if there are scientific studies going against your position.

Agreed, but I don't understand the relevance.

As noted above, cupholder clearly chose an unreasonable interpretation of my question.

I found all his interpretations (or what I think to be his interpretations) quite natural. Clearly we have conflicting intuitions. What interpretation did you have in mind, i.e. what type of answer you have expected?

What exactly is the question I asked which is unclear?

It is too general to be answered in a concise comment. Therefore, when replying one has to either choose one particular aspect or be very vague.

Comment author: brazil84 24 March 2010 07:40:50PM 0 points [-]

Agreed, but I don't understand the relevance

As I recall, that's one of the issues which was under discussion.

I found all his interpretations (or what I think to be his interpretations) quite natural. Clearly we have conflicting intuitions. What interpretation did you have in mind,

I claim that the two questions I quoted myself asking are essentially the same question:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/1t48

It is too general to be answered in a concise comment. Therefore, when replying one has to either choose one particular aspect or be very vague.

Which question are you talking about?

Comment author: prase 24 March 2010 08:03:03PM *  0 points [-]

So "reject the evidence" can mean 1) deny that the evidence exists and 2) not consider the evidence convincing. You find the interpretation 2) obvious and 1) unreasonable in the given context. Am I right? If so, well, after thinking about it for a while I admit that 2) is a lot better interpretation, but nevertheless I wouldn't call the other one unreasonable, nor I suspect cupholder of deliberate misinterpretation; people sometimes interpret others wrongly.

Which question are you talking about?

The question by what standard you reject the evidence for the existence of God?

Comment author: brazil84 24 March 2010 08:14:48PM 0 points [-]

So "reject the evidence" can mean 1) deny that the evidence exists and 2) not consider the evidence convincing. You find the interpretation 2) obvious and 1) unreasonable in the given context. Am I right?

Pretty much yes.

If so, well, after thinking about it for a while I admit that 2) is a lot better interpretation, but nevertheless I wouldn't call the other one unreasonable, nor I suspect cupholder of deliberate misinterpretation; people sometimes interpret others wrongly.

I disagree, but at a minimum, it was hardly unreasonable for me to rephrase the question.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit