= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
steven0461 comments on Epistle to the New York Less Wrongians - 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 (271)
Right, but there really aren't any good arguments for adopting P(n) for any n - none worth considering, at least. And that's a countably infinite number of policy debates that we don't need to have!
But that's an example of "wins by a comfortable margin", not "all the arguments go the same way". For example, P(n) is cheap to implement for low n.
No cheaper than leaving out the sack and the potatoes. Do you really think that there are any benefits of P(n) for any n that would justify having a debate over it? I think all the arguments go the same way for sufficiently small values of "all" - that is, it's "one-sided" enough that it shouldn't even be brought up.
One reason to bring up argument X against policy P when policy P is clearly better is that there might be a slight modification of P that retains the advantages of P while addressing argument X.