= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on What is Eliezer Yudkowsky's meta-ethical theory? - 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 (368)
Humans and Babykillers are not talking about the same subject matter when they debate what-to-do-next, and their doing different things does not constitute disagreement.
There's a baby in front of me, and I say "Humans and Babykillers disagree about what to do next with this baby."
The one replies: "No, they don't. They aren't talking about the same subject when they debate what to do next; this is not a disagreement."
"Let me rephrase," I say. "Babykillers prefer that this baby be killed. Humans prefer that this baby have fun. Fun and babykilling can't both be implemented on the same baby: if it's killed, it's not having fun; if it's having fun, it hasn't been killed."
Have I left out anything of value in my restatement? If so, what have I left out?
More generally: given all the above, why should I care whether or not what humans and Babykillers have with respect to this baby is a disagreement? What difference does that make?
If you disagree with someone, and you're both sufficiently rational, then you can expect to have a good shot at resolving your disagreement by arguing. That doesn't work if you just have fundamentally different motivational frameworks.
I don't know if I agree that a disagreement is necessarily resolvable by argument, but I certainly agree that many disagreements are so resolvable, whereas a complete difference of motivational framework is not.
If that's what EY meant to convey by bringing up the question of whether Humans and Babykillers disagree, I agree completely.
As I said initially: "Humans and Babykillers as defined will simply never agree about how the universe would best be ordered."
We previously debated the disagreements between those with different values here.
The dictionary apparently supports the idea that any conflict is a disagreement.
To understand the other side of the argument, I think it helps to look at this:
One side has redefined "disagreement" to mean "a difference of opinion over facts"!
I think that explains much of the sound and fury surrounding the issue.
A "difference of opinion over goals" is not a "difference of opinion over facts".
However, note that different goals led to the cigarette companies denying the link between cigarettes and cancer - and also led to oil company AGW denialism - which caused many real-world disagreements.
All of which leaves me with the same question I started with. If I know what questions you and I give different answers to -- be they questions about facts, values, goals, or whatever else -- what is added to my understanding of the situation by asserting that we disagree, or don't disagree?
ata's reply was that "we disagree" additionally indicates that we can potentially converge on a common answer by arguing. That also seems to be what EY was getting at about hot air and rocks.
That makes sense to me, and sure, it's additionally worth clarifying whether you and I can potentially converge on a common answer by arguing.
Anything else?
Because all of this dueling-definitions stuff strikes me as a pointless distraction. I use words to communicate concepts; if a word no longer clearly communicates concepts it's no longer worth anything to me.
That doesn't seem to be what the dictionary says "disagreement" means.
Maybe if both sides realise that the argument is pointless, they would not waste their time - but what if they don't know what will happen? - or what if their disagreement is intended to sway not their debating partner, but a watching audience?
I agree with you about what the dictionary says, and that people might not know whether they can converge on a common answer, and that people might go through the motions of a disagreement for the benefit of observers.