Rationality Quotes: January 2011
Post quotes.
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts from LW. (If you want to exclude OB too create your own quotes thread! OB is entertaining and insightful and all but it is no rationality blog!)
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (268)
--Chip Heath & Dan Heath, Switch: How To Change Things When Change Is Hard, pg 181
I like this and agree with the sentiment, but I suspect it's not quite true as stated.
At least, I can enjoy watching someone build a structure out of a pile of wood, even though I don't attribute any kind of fundamental pile-nature to the wood and am not shocked by that nature being subverted... I just enjoy watching someone exercise skill. I can imagine enjoying watching a skilled behavior-modification expert construct cooperation out of conflict in the same way.
--Leo Rosten, "An Infuriating Man," People I Have Known, Loved, or Admired.
Things would be so different if they were not as they are.
There is no harm in being sometimes wrong — especially if one is promptly found out.
John Maynard Keynes
--W.H. Auden
— Mark Twain (in Pudd'nhead Wilson)
Mark Twain is an uncommonly bad source for business advice, IMO. A watched stock never grows.
-- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, book 4, chapter 16
That quote is from "Think Like Reality", and therefore a violation of Rule 3.
Ah, completely missed that.
Clearly the wrong thread, then. Should I delete the comment, and can you recommend somewhere else to post it?
I'd probably post it in the latest Open Thread.
Thanks
Wall Street Journal
That's actually a pretty witty reply on Giffords's part. I think better of her now.
William Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications
scientia potentia est
Knowledge is power.
--This quote is attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, but we don't really know.
"The incredibly powerful and the incredibly stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views. This can be rather uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
--Dr. Who
Olivier Morin
— Kyoshi Antonio Fournier
---The Flaming Lips, "All We Have is Now" (relevance: anthropic doomsday argument)
---Summerspeaker, "The joys of solidarity with the technophobic"
-- Japanese Proverb
Never understood the math behind that one. Do I start off lying down?
That's how I usually start the day.
Or, you know... crawling.
It's a ratio of standing vs falling.
Stand first. Fall. Stand. No matter how many times you fall, stand up once more. That always keeps the ratio of standing higher than falling. This is straight-forward, no?
You could end up double-standing. Transcend to a new level of up? Walk up some stairs, perhaps?
Indeed. What is to standing, as standing is to sitting? What is to walking, as walking is to crawling? What is to humans, as humans are to their pets? What is to 3D movement, as 3D movement is to 2D?
Or something.
Jumping.
Running.
Dragons.
4D movement.
Hopping. Each time you halve the number of limbs involved.
Standing like a chicken, with your knee and hip joints bent the wrong way.
I always figured one of the times you get up is supposed to be symbolic, but I'm not sure what of.
Ah, I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that.
you start standing, you end standing.
Then it would be "Fall down seven times, stand up seven."
Okay, let's get super technical. May as well, it is LW after all.
You start off as a baby who can't even crawl. Eventually, after much effort and encouragement from loving voices you get your feet below you and you stand up.
Now that you're standing (1) you face your first challenge: Walking. You take one leg and put most of it in front of the other, you fall. (1) Why? Because you forgot to move your foot. So you stand up again, (2) and you get your leg AND your foot in front of the other. You crash down on the dog. (2) Gotta get that balance in check, babe! Alright, so we're up again. (3) You kick that leg forward, you stick an arm out the other way to spare the dog further discomfort and splash, (3) there goes the jube jubes on the coffee table. You're in heaven! Your mom perks up from the news to see what's going on (OF COURSE she notices as soon as the candies are involved) She grabs you, yells at you for stealing candies and wonders how you got yourself in so much trouble. While she steals away your candies, you decide it's time to find more adventures. In a flash you're up on your feet (3) this time you're using the coffee table to stabilize. Your mom takes a glance over and she's shocked! "ooo my god my baby is wal.." she's cut off when your ignorant older brother comes in and whisks you off your feet just before your first successful step. Some commotion ensues between the older people. Eventually you're placed back down on your bum to start again at your leisure... (4) or is it? Now there's a crowd. They're all wanting something from you. You have to think about this of course. You can't take the pressure, you gotta get out of there and fast. Bam! (5) you're back up and trying desperately to get away from these oogling weirdos. 1 step, 2 steps, 3 steps, you panic, you fall! (5) They're still on your tail, back up again, (6) "just head for the door" you think to yourself. "The crowd's only getting uglier!" Finally you make it, the people behind you are going nuts, can't look back now.. The doorway is right there, and it's open cause dad was doing the lawn, you trip just before the threshold. (6) you roll out the door, back flip up to your feet, and you make a run for it! The crowd goes wild! You get smoked by an oncoming vehicle (7) (your sister's tricycle) But you dust it off and get back up (8) now you're free and running! A clean escape!
What on earth?
HonoreDB was pointing out that if you start standing, then the number of times you've stood up can never exceed the number of times you've fallen down (unless you can stand up while you're already standing).
maybe, as ninjacolin describes, you have to stand up once BEFORE you fall down. So, in fact, to end up standing, you MUST stand up one more time than you fall down (unless you assume that everyone starts out standing, which they don't).
Is that what the proverb means? Not necessarilly... but the math isn't wrong.
You could sit down without falling.
-- Agnes de Mille
Source: De Mille, Dance to the Piper 77; according to http://books.google.com/books?id=ihFTOcU8kAUC
-John F. Kennedy
There's a certain irony in that, coming from a politician as adept at making and using myths as JFK was.
The enemy of his enemy was his friend.
Wolfgang Langewiesche, ''Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flying'', Part I, "Wings". (via)
I don't think this is really true (but have not been able to downvote anything for quite some time). You can have a functional understanding of how something works (if you do A to it it makes B happen) without having a model of how it works internally. This sort of modeling is what the "theory" practicalists disdain concerns itself with, and they may do well to ignore it.
Because we have limited computational abilities, we will often do better on non-novel problems by learning a few useful patterns than by deriving everything from the underlying model. There is a reason why in elementary-school math classes we do not just give the children the Peano axioms and say "have at it".
I would like to belatedly apologize for the terseness of my response - I realize now that I was basically punishing you for not hearing what I didn't say, which was wrong of me.
In point of fact, I think Langewiesche was not quite correct - you can do things well without theory. Look at control systems. What theory lets you do is predict which practices will do well. We don't give children the Peano axioms, but we try to make sure what we teach them accords with those axioms.
Next paragraph in the book:
The synthesis here is roughly: Practical experience in a sort of Giant Lookup Table fashion but has bugs and fails in certain situations. Theory may have limits, but its main flaw is that it includes many useless things. To help those with practical experience, you need an awareness of theory and an awareness of the bugs in practical experience.
Anecdotal evidence: Most of driving, I learned through practice and instruction. I learned to brake smoothly only after my dad told me the underlying physics.
Thinking it over, it's also a matter of extrapolation. From practice, you can effectively fit a curve to the behavior, but you don't learn what happens outside the domain where that curve fits - and so, when you stall the wing or lose grip on the rear tires, your reactions will be exactly wrong, because you're playing by rules that don't apply any more. And yes, you can learn to fit the point of switchover and learn to fit the behavior in the new regime, in time ... but if you crash, first, it will be very expensive.
Agreed, both are advantages of theory.
Dirge without Music
Edna St. Vincent Millay
I am not resigned to the shutting away of loving hearts in the hard ground.
So it is, and so it will be, for so it has been, time out of mind:
Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. Crowned
With lilies and with laurel they go; but I am not resigned.
Lovers and thinkers, into the earth with you.
Be one with the dull, the indiscriminate dust.
A fragment of what you felt, of what you knew,
A formula, a phrase remains, --- but the best is lost.
The answers quick & keen, the honest look, the laughter, the love,
They are gone. They have gone to feed the roses. Elegant and curled
Is the blossom. Fragrant is the blossom. I know. But I do not approve.
More precious was the light in your eyes than all the roses in the world.
Down, down, down into the darkness of the grave
Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind;
Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave.
I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.
--Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (A824/B852); seen on http://kenfeinstein.blogspot.com/2011/01/kant-on-betting-and-prediction-markets.html as linked by Marginal Revolution
Wow that's interesting...but really weird.
What if you have a firm conviction that betting is immoral?
Then, you prove your belief by NOT betting.
I think the "betting proof" is a cultural thing. Of course...I wouldn't bet much on that.
Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum.
Rough translation: To err is human, but to persist in error diabolical.
(Saw the quote in William Langewiesche's Fly By Wire; it is often attributed to Seneca on the Webs, but I can find no citation.)
A pagan-raised Stoic like Seneca was fairly unlikely to use infernal metaphors.
There are aphorisms similar to the first half among classical authors, but the current formulation originated with St. Augustine.
-- Émile Coué
This sounds like extremely naive optimism. A vast majority of games in all team sports, for instance, probably end in one team failing to do a possible thing they thought they could do.
Point one: I think you and he are using different definitions of "possible".
Point two: "Win the game" is not a well-specified outcome in hypnosis or NLP, since it relies upon matters outside your control.
What do you think the different definitions of possible they are using are?
Definition 1: possible as in "I can imagine winning, therefore it's possible"
Definition 2: possible as in "actually possible for me to do in reality, independent of whether I imagine it to be so"
The quote was using definition 2: that is, "if you persuade yourself that you can do a certain thing, provided this thing is possible [in the real world when you attempt it], you will do it, however difficult it may be." Desrtopa's argument from team sports is using the first.
IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control. They can, however, imagine it possible to execute various skills at a high level of proficiency, and do this, whether they win or not.
In fact, it is generally reputed that the "winningest" teams tend to follow this philosophy: i.e., to practice the execution of basic skills to a near-exclusion of any consideration of "winning". This is quite in keeping with the spirit of the original quote, which is regarding that which is actually possible given a particular set of circumstances (such as the state of the other team) which are not actually under your control.
"IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control"
But just because a team does not win, does not mean it was not possible.
I mean, think of all the things that a person does multiple times but doesn't do every time. Hit a golf ball x yards, run a 7 minute mill, sing on key. The "imagining" has nothing to do with it.
In a deterministic context, things that are "possible to do in reality" and things that are necessarily going to happen have complete overlap. In this context, saying that if it's possible then you will do it is vacuous.
In any case where we can't predict future events with certainty, this definition is fairly useless. The colloquial, and more generally functional definition of possible, is that we cannot discount the potential that a thing might happen prior to the fact. Just because we can imagine something happening does not mean that it cannot be discounted as a possibility, and just because something is necessarily going to happen does not mean we can know that ahead of time and discount the possibility of events that would be exclusive with it.
By the practical definition of "possible," the quote is not true, and by the strict deterministic definition the quote is still not true, because one can in fact do things one believes oneself to be incapable of.
If you interpret the quote to use the colloquial definition of "possible," but assume that it only applies to things where no elements of the activity are outside your control, then it's deceptively lacking in meaning, because beyond a trivial scale there is very little one can accomplish where this applies.
Fallacy of the grey. An athletic competition involves a great deal of elements where one's control is neither complete nor absent.
If the author had intended deception, he'd have seen no need to include the disclaimer regarding possibility. He effectively said, "if you believe you can, then you can do things that otherwise would be very difficult -- you won't do the truly impossible, of course, just the seemingly impossible."
Since the beginning, not one impossible thing has ever happened. If it happened, it was possible, after all.
He said that if you believe you can do a thing, and it is possible, you will do it, which is quite different from saying that you can do it. If you add as many qualifications as are necessary for it to be accurate, it is no longer an interesting, or, I would think, particularly inspirational statement.
Yes, I agree. The author also promoted therapeutic hypnosis. I like the quote in spite of its hyperbole.
"Do you know, in 900 years of time and space, I've never met anyone who wasn't important."
Doctor Who (written by Steven Moffatt)
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle
Recently quoted on the web in relation to acupuncture studies.
This is very good advice -- especially since postulating a cause probably increases your credence for a purported fact. Quote filed away and advice taken to heart.
Also, this ties in well with Your Strength as a Rationalist.
-- Kay Hanley
This reminds me of hyperbolic discounting and doesn't seem to have other redeeming qualities.
I was thinking along the lines of doing one's best with earthly life rather than waiting for a promised afterlife. Mind you the song's not really about either of those things, but I first heard the quote out of context and decided to keep it that way. :p
Tim Minchin, Storm
Dammit, how do you get line-breaks? It's a poem, but the stanzas get flowed into paragraphs.
That one seemed a little preachy and "rah-rah science" to me. I much preferred his "Fuck the Poor":
I like to think of it as another post that's about not just about the quote itself but how a Less Wrong context completely changes its meaning.
For those who haven't heard the whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk
Two spaces at the end of a line.
thanks!
please correct "it's memory" to "its memory" too.
Nice poem, btw :-)
OK
I can't remember the source of the quote I'm thinking of, but it goes something like this:
"People always remark that I know so much about science and so little about celebrities, but they fail to see that the two are related."
Does anyone know the original quote?
There's this:
Related, from The Onion.
Where did you find that quote originally?
He posted it quite a while ago: http://lesswrong.com/lw/n8/rationality_quotes_9/
I was unable to track it any further - all the Google hits seem to trace back to this or the original posting.
Here's one of a few mailing list postings where he has it as his signature.
Maybe that was it and I spruced it up in my head! Thanks.
The new XKCD is highly relevant.
Reading through the misconceptions page I discover that meteorites are not hot when they hit the earth! And after all this time thinking I could use them to finish off trolls.
My first year Geology lecturer said that apart from wanting to avoid contaminating the sample, the best reason to avoid touching fresh meteorites with your bare hands is the risk of freezer burn.
Wait, the mouseover says:
It just occurred to me that my museum visits as a child deceived me. That hundred year old glass didn't flow! Lies! They've found panes upside down and sideways (with respect to thickness differentials) too.
This is more depressing than inspiring, but the final sentence is worth contemplating. It's from a review of a short book by the 19th-century economist Francis Edgeworth, showing how to begin a mathematical (utilitarian) treatment of morality.
WS Jevons (1881), "Review of Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics", Mind, Vol. 6, p.581-583.
-- A Softer World #626
Possibly related: Cached Selves and some of its outbound links, and Violent Acres' idea of self-brainwashing (bottom of post).
—Terry Pratchett, Making Money
Although thought by a madman in the book, there seems to be truth in this quote. People often seem to think of the future as a coherent, specific story not unlike the one woven by the brain from the past events. Unpleasant surprises happen when the real events inevitably deviate from those imagined.
Even on the Discworld, they have Perceptual Control Theory!
Terry Pratchett has an unusual art of presenting fantasy worlds full of nails.
That's how I play chess.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup
They should teach this in college!
I don't recall my professors ever making the point that the way we wrote short programs for class would not always work on large programs.
Interesting, it seems like best practices are easy to teach (just follow these simple rules!), and the dysfunctional thing I'd expect would be for professors to tell you to follow them but not tell you why.
Updated.
One dysfunctional thing I'd expect would be the existence or perceived existence of a contrary movement, using the word "dogma" and saying things like "worse is better" and "if it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid" and "those ivory-tower academics never have to deal with real-world problems" and "when theory and practice clash, theory loses".
For example, this article makes a specific point about a specific situation (mixed in with some crazy), but might still leave one with an impression of "boo carefully planned programs, yay big hairy messes where you don't know what half the API calls are for".
Also, general hyperbolic discounting and programmers just not caring.
Also, sort of implied by that: methodologies that don't actually work.
Unexpectedly semi-relevant: the latest xkcd, Good Code.
That's the failure mode that most of my profs fell into. When I was in school, there was a strong emphasis on correct style -- in the extreme case, for example, some professors would fail an assignment if it didn't have a high enough fraction of comments to functional code -- but very little to suggest a coherent theory of software engineering.
From what I remember, most of my peers approached it with the attitude of being just another hoop to jump through.
Maybe they do, now. When I was in CS, we had no classes on software engineering. But that was a long time ago, in CS terms. So you should not believe that I know what I'm talking about.
"...natural selection built the brain to survive in the world and only incidentally to understand it at a depth greater than is needed to survive. The proper task of scientists is to diagnose and correct the misalignment." -- E. O. Wilson
"Fanatics may suppose, that dominion is founded on grace, and that saints alone inherit the earth; but the civil magistrate very justly puts these sublime theorists on the same footing with common robbers, and teaches them by the severest discipline, that a rule, which, in speculation, may seem the most advantageous to society, may yet be found, in practice, totally pernicious and destructive." -- David Hume
More of an anti-fanaticism quotation, but it seems to belong.
-- Larry Wall (Programming Perl, 2nd edition), quote somewhat abridged
del
-- Isuna Hasikura, Spice & Wolf [tr. Paul Starr]
I'd probably understand that better if I knew the context.
Lawrence is a traveling merchant in Spice & Wolf who's received a proposition from someone to buy information on upcoming changes in the precious metal content of a type of silver coin; the cost is a relatively small fixed fee plus a cut of the profits if the information is accurate. Holo, the eponymous "wisewolf," is essentially telling Lawrence that he has a dominant strategy.
Agreed. I have no clue what it means. I saw Spice & Wolf on the manga shelf in Borders... is it worth reading?
It's nowhere near as good as MoR in a LW sense, not as good as "The Cambist and Lord Iron" at teaching economics through fiction, and you would not find it an intellectual challenge in any sense, but in the general context of Japanese light novels, it's good, I think.
(At $8 and what I remember of your comments, I would give 60% odds you would not regret the purchase, and 5-10% you'd like it 'quite a bit' or something along those lines. If you do buy it, please tell me before you finish so I can register this as a prediction on PredictionBook.com.)
The post that he's responding to is also interesting.
Although the very question "Are We Stubborn or Manipulable?" invites a post on how to manipulate people by harnessing their stubbornness. I've won plenty of games that way. :)
-Fred Mosteller
Dr. Manhattan, Watchmen
Hey, no quoting yourself.
I'm still on Mars, Laurie.
"Simultaneous" is a word that you use from within time, to refer to relations described by time. I don't think you'd use the word that way if you were really looking at the universe at the level of timeless physics, really seeing the whole design in every facet. (Though it is the word you'd probably use if you were a human author trying to write a character who sees the deeper reality beyond time, if you yourself don't quite see it. :P) Probably the intuition behind that is imagining looking at spacetime as something like a film reel laid out in front of you, and seeing that it's all already there, no matter what the people in any given frame seem to think. But that puts your perspective outside this universe's apparent time dimension, but inside an imagined outer timeline against which you can continue using words like "simultaneous" or "already". And that's no way to really reduce time; it's a mistake similar to trying to reduce consciousness by putting a little homunculus inside your head that watches your sensory input on a projector screen. It's reducing a black box to some visible machinery interacting with... another copy of the same black box.
I don't think there's any perspective from which "Time is simultaneous" makes sense, unless our universe is actually a static block of already-computed data on the hard drive of some computer in a different reality with its own timelike dimension.
(Edit: Oh, and Dr. Manhattan is being a bit uncharitable by claiming that "humans insist" on seeing things in this limited way. Sure, I consider my lack of omniscience to be a moral failing on my part, but that doesn't mean I'm not trying to do better.)
-- Salman Khan, Khan Academy
This is both insightful and highly quotable.
Could you give a specific video? This looks like an interesting site.
It's from Renting vs. Buying a home (the quote might be in the part 2 or "detailed analysis" followup videos).
The videos there are on par with a first-rate college lecture. I believe Khan Academy is at the forefront of the growing anti-college revolution.
Upvoted. I have undergraduate commerce friends who want their degrees already so they can start on their mortgage. I asked them if they'd done a comparison with renting. They repeated the cached wisdom of "renting bad, mortgage good", and "look everyone else is doing it". I wish I had had this quote on hand - as it was I said something like "is everyone else mostly made up of commerce majors?" and didn't really get my point across.
-Saying of investors
Technically off-topic...but I've never understood why people think turkeys can't fly. I've even seen an ornithologist quoted in the NYTimes saying it (when a live turkey was found on an upper level balcony). Maybe it's just domesticated turkeys...but I've definitely seen wild turkeys fly (and no, it's got nothing to do with the whiskey).
Which brings me to an interesting (to me) question: why do people base a piece of "wisdom" on a reference that is untrue to begin with?
[and in closing: You don't win friends with salad.]
That's a good question. If I had to guess, I would say that most people used to be familiar with the domestic turkey that is being fattened for thanksgiving dinner (or whatever), and those probably can't fly very well, if at all.
I've heard a similar aeronautical saying: Of course pigs can fly, they just need sufficient thrust.
I actually like the next statement more:
At least Homer Simpson accepts that the pig is gone.
-Jeremy Grantham, about the stock market/economy.
-Walter Lippmann
The fact that the above comment got a lot of upvotes (i.e, widespread approval) is ironic.
There is a distinction to be made between "thinking alike things" and "thinking in alike ways". Because the world is crazy and most people don't even know there are ways of thinking (and those that do most often profess that everything is subjective), any statement "think alike" commonly is interpreted to mean "think alike things", which is truly a good indicator of scarcity of thought in the common case.
(LessWrong is a near-complete inversion; where all/most thinking alike is strong evidence that a huge amount of thought has been happening)
True and well thought out.
-Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The psychology of Persuasion, p.59
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Richard Dawkins, God's Utility Function
One problem I have often seen in "rationalist" and atheist literature is assuming the meaning of a particular phrase and then attacking it, whether or not it was the intended meaning. "Why" is asked as often about something's causes as about it's purpose. I agree that purpose-why is illegitimate to ask about natural objects, but Mt Everest has a completely legitimate cause-why, depending mostly on plate tectonics. There is nothing that makes the purpose-why which is being attacked, more likely to be the intended meaning of a question than using why to ask about the causes; which would make the attack off target and more likely to do nothing but engender resentment.
I see your point, but I also think it's problematic when people say "why (implication: cause-why)" instead of just saying "how".
When I hear people saying "Why did Mt. Everest form?", I can substitute "How did..." in my head, but it also makes me wonder why they used "why" in the first place. No biggie, but that's only because we know a fair bit about geology and how mountains form.
When it comes to broader questions like "Why does the universe exist?", then the equivocation problem becomes much severer. I think in that particular case, there's a good chance that the questioner is genuinely meaning to ask "purpose-and-cause-why", because the concepts of "purpose-why" and "cause-why" are equivocated (since there's no clear answer for the latter and blank spot for the former, as there is for Mt. Everest).
To me it seems a proper use of 'why'. It means: consider the world as it was at some time in the past before Everest existed. Had we been alive then, we could imagine a future where Everest would form, or a future where it (counterfactually) would not form. The correct prediction would have been to say that it would form; we know that in our own present. But of a person reasoning only from what existed in the past, we can ask, why do you predict that Everest will form?
That is, to me, the meaning of the world "why" used about objects: it asks why the past evolved into our present rather than into a counterfactually different one.
My point, though, was that by assuming the other, rationalists are unnecessarily antagonizing people. Assume the person meant the "how" and answer that. If they meant the other, they will say so, then you can complain that it is an illegitimate question.
René Descartes walks into a bar ...
He's a regular, so the bartender says, "Hey, René! How ya been? You have your usual?"
The philosopher pauses and says, "I think not."
He ceases to exist.
Jokes about "I think, therefore I am" are always amusing to students of logic, because people twist themselves in knots trying to make it seem weird, when the only thing you can do with "I think -> I am" is "I am not -> I think not", and "Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking" isn't funny.
An eight year old Rene Descartes had been spending hours at study, trying to work out a particularly tricky geometry problem. His Jesuit teacher says "I think it's time for a break. You're clearly exhausted." "I am not!" the boy insists, as he falls unconscious.
That's not even rational, it's affirming the consequent.
It's a joke about rationality. Why should all rationality quotes need to be direct and inspiring?
I would in general approve of a joke about rationality. I just don't think that this was particularly related to rationality or particularly funny, and it contained a logical fallacy without the fallacy being the butt of the joke, so it was not very rational.
However, on the assumption that at least once in René's life he did indeed walk into a bar and refuse his regular drink in such manner (it seems possible), the premises and the conclusion are all true.
I think the implication that the cessation of existence was immediate was at least as strongly implied as that the exchange took place in French.
Of course. One of the things that learning logic from philosophy teaches you is to be nitpicky about deriving causation from conditionals. A truth table, for better or worse, contains no field for "strong implication contradicted".
I don't think I derived this implication from the `I think, therefore I am,' I think I got it from how it happened right after, though I can't be sure about that specific instance of causation in my brain.
Best summary of the justification for Bayesian AI I've ever heard.
How many Less Wrongers does it take to ruin a joke?
None. Any general intelligence should be able to do it.
Two, judging by the number of people between your comment and the top one, with the top comment being excluded because the ruining of a joke is defined not to include the initial statement of the joke and, due to the way in which you mentioned the ruining of the joke, you presumably were commenting on an existing situation, rather than one which you had just completed ;)
AUGH
Hmm, it was only one that time.
Really? What if they totally mess up the punchline? Or accidentally use a synonym of the word that was being set up for a pun?
Good point, I did assume that the joke was told correctly.
Re-writing Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" as ("If I think, then I am" and "I think"); therefore "I am". Then the joke's "I think not" would be denying the antecedent, which is still a fallacy, of course.
I seem to represent P -> Q and ~Q -> ~P the same way in my mind, but giving the resulting fallacies different names reduces ambiguity, so I guess this is a useful distinction.
Affirming the consequent is a totally different fallacy -
"If P, then Q and Q is true; therefore P".
By the principle of explosion, all fallacies are the same.
(∀P,Q ((P->Q) ^ Q) -> P) <-> (∀P,Q ((P->Q) ^ ~P) -> ~Q)
No. This is not the case. Just because something is a fallacy doesn't make its negation true. Thus for example (P->Q) -> (Q->P) is a fallacy. But ~((P->Q) ->(Q->P) ) is not a theorem of first order logic. So even if I throw (P->Q) -> (Q->P) as an additional axiom in I can't get a general explosion in first order logic. Contradictions lead to explosion, but fallacies do not necessarily do so.
Sure you can.
Edit:
(P->Q) -> (Q->P) is not a fallacy. ∀P,Q: (P->Q) -> (Q->P) is a fallacy, and its negation is ∃P,Q: (P->Q)^~(Q->P) which is indeed a theorem in first order logic.
Huh?? If you allow quantification over propositions, you are no longer using first order logic.
I think you were closer to being on track before your edit. The first thing to realize is that a fallacy is not a false statement. It is an invalid inference scheme or rule of inference.
So, with P and Q taken to be schematic variables (to be instantiated as propositions), the following is a fallacy (affirming the consequent):
P -> Q |- Q -> P
Or, you could have simply corrected the words "additional axiom" in the quoted claim to "additional axiom scheme".
Er, sorry. Meant propositional calculus not first order logic. I think my statement works in that context.
What's specifically going on here is that (P=>Q) => (Q=> P) is false whenever P is false and Q is true.
Adding it as an axiom schema to propositional calculus results in a contradiction. It cannot be added as a single axiom to first-order logic.
That depends on the definition of same. All fallacies imply each other, but the premises and conclusions in these two should be represented identically by a computer.
Denying the antecedent with P and Q:
P -> Q
~P
Therefore ~Q
Affirming the consequent with ~Q and ~P
~Q -> ~P
~P
Therefore ~Q
Wow, I feel kind of bad just writing those chains of "deduction". Anyways, the same result was concluded from the same minor premise, the only difference is the major premise, and P -> Q and ~Q -> ~P are equivalent.
edit: formatting
P→Q is not logically equivalent to ~Q→P. Perhaps you meant P→Q and ~Q→~P.
Fixed, thanks.
George Orwell
Or a mirror.
Makes me wonder if a good way to deal with rationality or akrasia or self-improvement would be the kind of support group where everyone tries to find fault with everyone else. It's so easy to see flaws in others compared to flaws in ourselves, why not use that to our advantage?
Finding the right people to do this who could both handle it and keep it from turning into an insult trading group might be difficult.
I tend to find focussing on developing strengths to better than focussing on weaknesses. Mind you there is a place for constructive criticism. But there are relatively few sources from whom such criticism is valuable.
I don't follow. If you never focus on things you can't do well, you'll never do anything different or build any new abilities.
Piano teacher: You're not keeping time very well, you could benefit from practising playing to a metronome.
wedrifid: I prefer to focus on developing strengths, and I'm really good at playing loudly so I'll just do that, thanks.
?
The most important part in that comment:
Followed closely by:
Definitely not:
I was thinking of a group more like "you said your piano teacher suggested practising with a metronome - have you actually done so this week?"
"you've said a priority is learning the piano, yet you aren't keeping track of your practise or recording yourself or making any way to check your progress and get feedback. Have you noticed that is inconsistent with your stated desire?"
"Do you realise how much you are talking about your commute to work compared to it's real impact on your life?"
not
"you really suck at the piano"
"and have you noticed how stupid you are?"
"and how you talk forever about boring things?"
Isn't that exactly what we do here (and on other forums)?