= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Assuming Nails - 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 (29)
I was surprised to see such negative response to something I found so interesting. This comment and its support suggest either I've written this poorly, or using Economics as an example has gotten people sidetracked from my main point (which is I suppose a more specific way of saying I have written it poorly). I shall have to attempt to make the point in a more clear and concise manner in the near future; this is not intended as a criticism of economics, it is about a particular error in our manner of thinking. The fact that economics gets a lot right is actually besides the point, and as I did not comment on the degree of conformity modern economic models have to reality, nothing I wrote was intended to say it is useless.
I would suspect it is the latter combined with a third factor: your points, so far as I can determine, are (a) models only predict reality if their assumptions are valid, and (b) it's easy to think that your model is good even with the assumptions aren't valid.
Point (a) would be interesting if it weren't trivial.
Point (b) would be interesting if you showed it convincingly.
The ideal post to make these points would, instead of continuing from "If this concept doesn't make perfect sense [...]", demonstrate this phenomenon in several examples detailed enough to eliminate other reasonable hypotheses.
I agree completely. I love "etherial etherialness", and I think (a) is a good point, which was terribly uninteresting to read because I've heard it before both on LW and elsewhere.