Pavitra comments on Three consistent positions for computationalists - Less Wrong

5 Post author: dfranke 14 April 2011 01:15PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (176)

Comments (176)

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

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 14 April 2011 10:29:31PM *  1 point [-]

Or, to put it another way, failure to offer a coherent refutation of an incoherent hypothesis doesn't represent evidence for incoherence hypothesis.

Could you edit this? I can't decipher it.

[eta: Cyan and Pavitra have come up with nice obviously-true statements that are textually similar to the original bungled sentence and similar in meaning, but I can't be sure of what you meant.]

Comment author: Pavitra 14 April 2011 11:01:14PM 1 point [-]

I read it to mean that once one has demonstrated a hypothesis to be incoherent, one does not then also need to demonstrate it to be false.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit