= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Annoyance comments on Beginning at the Beginning - 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 (57)
'Cultural relativism' only diverges when dealing with statements that have no actual truth value. When people consciously and explicitly attempt to understand reality, their beliefs tend to converge.
How many different systems of chemistry are there? How about applied physics? Are there fundamentally different schools of thought that have wildly divergent approaches to fluid dynamics?
The question of what standards determine validity tends to be answered in the same way, as long as the question is approached in a certain manner. That manner is: consciously and explicitly, demonstrating each step and maintaining consistency.
Your definition appears indefensible to me - that isn't a useful definition of what rationality is. I'm surprised that you are bothering to defend it.
"Your definition appears indefensible to me - that isn't a useful definition of what rationality is. "
It both conveys what the generally-recognized meaning is, and describes a very useful concept that is fundamental to all sorts of processes.
I can only conclude that I don't understand what you mean by 'useful', and I see no benefit to learning what you men.
I disagree - but having now read some more of your messages, I can see that there is no point in discussing the issue further.
In what way is the definition not useful? What are you trying to use it for?
Your surprise seems to add little to my understanding of your comment.
I said it all the first time really - there seems no need to explain the problem again.