Vladimir_Nesov comments on Were atoms real? - Less Wrong

61 Post author: AnnaSalamon 08 December 2010 05:30PM

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

Comments (156)

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 December 2010 12:01:40AM *  2 points [-]

Being narrow with your own conceptual framework is good, but I'm promoting being liberal when it comes to interpreting others' concepts, when playing fast and loose in back-and-forth discourse, and when reasoning very abstractly in order to see connections. As long as you make sure to go back and make sure that everything connects precisely, and avoid affective death spirals around seemingly big insights about the fundamental nature of all things (which is somewhat difficult), it can be useful for getting new perspectives and for communicating concepts effectively.

ETA: With regards to communication, this only really works if each of the participants has some amount of faith in the epistemology of their conversation partner. If some random guy told me God exists, and I wanted to make him smarter, I wouldn't go on about all the ways that God exists; I'd go on about the ways He doesn't.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 09 December 2010 12:11:45AM 2 points [-]

If some random guy told me God exists, and I wanted to make him smarter, I wouldn't go on about all the ways that God exists; I'd go on about the ways He doesn't.

Or just teach him the Virtue of Narrowness.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 December 2010 12:13:08AM -2 points [-]

True, that's a better solution. But, but, but being contrarian is so much more fun!