Desrtopa comments on Popperian Decision making - Less Wrong

-1 Post author: curi 07 April 2011 06:42AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (100)

Comments (100)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: Desrtopa 07 April 2011 09:43:09PM 1 point [-]

Responses to criticisms are not interesting to me; proponents of any philosophy can respond to criticisms in ways that they are convinced are satisfying, and I'm not impressed that supporters of Critical Rationalism are doing a better job. If you cannot yourself come up with a convincing way to demonstrate that Critical Rationalism results in improved success in ways that supporters of other philosophies cannot, why should I take it seriously?

Comment author: curi 07 April 2011 09:45:40PM 2 points [-]

What would you find convincing? What convinced you of Bayes' or whatever you believe?

Comment author: Desrtopa 07 April 2011 09:53:35PM * 1 point [-]

Examples of mistakes in processing evidence people make in real life which lead to bad results, and how Bayesian reasoning resolves them, followed by concrete applications such as the review of the Amanda Knox trial.

Have you already looked at the review of the Amanda Knox trial? If you haven't, it might be a useful point for us to examine.

It doesn't help anyone to point out an example of inductive reasoning, say "this is a mistake" because you reject the foundations of inductive reasoning, but not demonstrate how rejecting it leads to better results than accepting it. So far the examples you have given of the supposed benefits of Critical Rationalism have been achievements of people who can only be loosely associated with Critical Rationalism, or arguments in a frame of Critical Rationalism for things that have already been argued for outside a frame of Critical Rationalism.

Comment author: curi comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Desrtopa 08 April 2011 08:47:09PM 1 point [-]

This doesn't address my requests at all.

So what if nobody has ever used induction? I'm convinced that Popper is wrong, but without any evidence that following his epistemology produces improved results, I don't see why I should be interested in the possibility that he's right. Even supposing induction is merely an approximation of how we really gain knowledge, it's a computable approximation which produces results that are at least as viable, so there's no reason why it not being the "real" method of knowledge production should matter, for AI or for humans.

What are you talking about? I don't think you know much about the philosophies of the people I listed. They aren't all just loosely associated.

Then explain specifically what each of them have achieved that could not have been achieved equally well had they not been Critical Rationalists, and why these achievements are due to Critical Rationalism. Or hell, explain what any of them have achieved that's unambiguously due to critical rationalism.

Comment author: curi 08 April 2011 09:25:29PM -1 points [-]

Even supposing induction is merely an approximation

Popper says it's not.

Does that matter to you?

Then explain specifically what each of them have achieved that could not have been achieved equally well had they not been Critical Rationalists, and why these achievements are due to Critical Rationalism. Or hell, explain what any of them have achieved that's unambiguously due to critical rationalism.

You are challenging me to explain things to you which you could learn about on your own if you wanted. You want me to answer questions you chose not to research. That is OK, but...

Before that you were dismissive. So I'm not sure if I want to help answer your questions about scientists. Are you a person with intellectual integrity who is worth talking to? Help me decide. You made a statement about the people I had listed, without knowing much about the people I had listed, and in particular without knowing if they all only have a loose association with CR or not. You falsely asserted they did all have a loose association only. You were mistaken to speak from ignorance about scientists -- assuming I was wrong without even asking -- and now you would like to learn better and change your mind. Is that correct?

Note for example that Deutsch has published two books advocating Popperian philosophy and talking extensively about Popper. That isn't a loose association. Even wikipedia level knowledge of these people would be sufficient not to make the mistake you did. You had less than that level of knowledge and posted anyway. Do you want to apologize, retract your statements, or anything? Or do you want to get mad at me now? I want to test your reaction.

Comment author: Desrtopa 08 April 2011 09:50:10PM 0 points [-]

Popper says it's not.

Does that matter to you?

I don't see why it should, unless you can demonstrate that it leads to different results. This is what I expect in order to have an interest in this discussion, please provide it if you want me to continue to participate.

You are challenging me to explain things to you which you could learn about on your own if you wanted. You want me to answer questions you chose not to research. That is OK, but...

Why should I commit to reading a large amount of material without an indication that it contains useful ideas? That's an opportunity cost, time I could be dedicating to countless other things including any other philosophy. You yourself haven't committed the time to reading the Sequences, and have demonstrated basic level misunderstandings of the positions we hold here; you're applying a double standard in your expectations.

I am giving you ample opportunity to convince me that doing this research is worth my time, and am becoming less and less patient as you fail to provide anything I consider a meaningful incentive.

Comment author: jimrandomh 08 April 2011 01:05:48AM * 1 point [-]

Inductive reasoning doesn't lead to any results, ever. No one has ever used it.

Go read Jaynes' defense of Laplace's rule of succession (which is an example of inductive reasoning) in Chapter 18.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 08 April 2011 01:35:48AM 0 points [-]

Inductive reasoning doesn't lead to any results, ever.

No one has ever used it.

This is so empirically false that I don't know how to approach it. Do you actually think that when people are saying that they are using induction they really aren't? Note that this isn't the same claim that people shouldn't be using induction or that their induction is unjustified. But claiming they are not using it is just wrong unless you are using some very non-standard terminology under which one could say things like "No one has ever used homeopathy." This seems like an abuse of language.

Comment author: curi 08 April 2011 09:53:35AM -2 points [-]

Post the method of induction, step by step, in sufficient detail that a reasonable person could do it without having to ask any questions.

When you fail -- in particular by having large unspecified parts -- it will be because you are wrong about the issue in question.

When you respond to this failure by making ad hoc additions that still don't provide followable instructions, then I will stop talking to you.

OK, go ahead.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 08 April 2011 01:14:44PM 0 points [-]

Please reread my statement. The issue I was arguing with is not whether or not induction is justified. It was whether or not people are using it.

Desrtopa comments on Popperian Decision making - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (100)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (100)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login