= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CuSithBell comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - 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 (1329)
Yes, we both are. We have gone as far as to accept a shared definition of logical validity and trace the dispute from there.
This is simply false. The following premise:
... becomes invalid the moment there is in fact a "thing said <etc, etc>" that is not likely to be correct. That's why I put it there! It is an instance of the class of premise "ALL G ARE W" and so just like all other premises in that class it is false if there is a G that is NOT W. it just so happens that 'likelyhood' is the subject matter here.
The above serves to make the premise in question rather brittle. While it does means that the whole argument can be treated as deductive reasoning (about the subject of likelyhoods) it is also means that there are very few worlds for which that premise is true and meaningful.
I interpreted your premise as: (Things said about Y by a person who has a reputation for being an expert on Y) are likely to be (correct.) as opposed to (Things said about Y by a person who has a reputation for being an expert on Y) are (likely to be correct.)
If, as you seem to be agreeing, a thing cannot be "likely to be correct" and "incorrect" (as known by the same reasoner), then the premise reduces to "Things said about Y by a person who has a reputation for being an expert on Y are correct".
Is this really what you intended?
The second was the intended meaning.
Given the 'as known by the same reasoner' clause wouldn't that imply that it is '<...> cannot be known to be incorrect'? Either way it is clear that the encapsulation of the probabilistic parts is woefully inadequate here.
No, but it does seem to be the implication.