= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dlthomas comments on How to Not Lose an Argument - 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 (409)
I wouldn't say 2 is bold at all, really, provided it is taken in a weak form - particularly if we factor out the transhumanist element. Yes, we will never be perfect Bayesian reasoning machines. This doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do better ever better. I'm not sure what reasonably charitable interpretation would be a really bold claim, here... "We're so far gone we shouldn't bother trying," perhaps, but that doesn't seem to square with this poster's other posts.
I don't really have a clear idea of what boyi is even trying to say, so I'm not trying to square it with other posts.
The way I see it, "it's impossible to make science live up to the ideals" is pretty bold. I'll try to see a charitable interpretation.
I don't know, there's a general sense in which ideals are almost never reached.
yeah. I interpreted it closer to "impossible to do better" than "impossible to be perfect". Looking back, the former is the more charitable interpretation.
I get this distinct feeling of having fallen for the fallacy of gray (cant be perfect == can't do better).
Idiomatically speaking, I think you can usually parse "can't be perfect" as a proxy for "should not aspire to the ideal, even if you accept that it can only be approached asymptotically".