= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Swimmer963 comments on Mapping our maps: types of knowledge - 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 (13)
I can't think of why I would have disagreed with this! If I seemed to disagree with it anywhere in the post, that was unintentional. The point is that description is the easiest and prediction is the hardest, thus the last to be reached, thus the outer level of the shell. Which is impressive, but only because it's harder, because you have to do all of the work involved in description before you can explain, and have a complete explanation before you can predict.
I believe Psychohistorian's criticism is primarily about the "shell" image: if interpreted as a Venn diagram, it gets the subset inclusion hierarchy backwards. Judging by your comment above, you have a different metaphor in mind -- something like a map in which an individual starts in the center and effortfully moves to the edge.
That makes more sense.