= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
saliency comments on Necessary, But Not Sufficient - 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 (15)
Oversimplification has it's uses.
In an environment where you get multiple chances to solve a problem and the cost of failure is small it is often efficient to use trial and error. In order to efficiently use trial and error it is best to fix all but one variable and confirm or eliminate possibilities.
The success of trial and error techniques influence the way we think about problems. We naturally seek to simplify the system to the point in which it can be tested. When something works we start with it next time but if next time it does not work we move on to the next variable we can isolate.
The problem is that this way of thinking can infect other areas of thinking. A person who has experience with his car not starting because his battery no longer can take a charge may first replace his battery before checking that his alternator is working.
Note that necessary-but-not-sufficient doesn't rule out oversimplification. You don't need to know about every necessary condition to solve a problem, only about the ones that are deficient in the current instance.
You just can't generalize from such a solution, if the evidence supports the idea that there may be other necessary conditions that are deficient in other cases.
"only about the ones that are deficient in the current instance."
How do you know what is deficient A priori? Investigation / diagnosis takes resources and have an opportunity cost.