= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
curi comments on Popperian Decision making - 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 (100)
Popper says it's not.
Does that matter to you?
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.
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.
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.