= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Cayenne comments on The 5-Second Level - 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 (310)
Well, I view opinions as inherently meaningless to attempt to test. A fact can be looked up or tested, but an opinion either can't be tested yet or is worthless to test.
'The sky is blue' is testable unless you've been stuck for generations underground. 'I like pink' is worthless to test, and really worthless to argue against. 'When we can do X it will then proceed to Y' is hard to do anything about until we can actually X, but if we pin the specifics down enough then it isn't totally useless to argue about it.
Some opinions can also just be completely infeasible to test as well, due to the steps the test would need to take. (Hayek vs. Keynes, I'm looking at you.)
Edit - please disregard this post
Sorry for delayed reply. "I like pink" is an assertion of a preference, rather than an opinion about a fact. (Well, I guess it's asserting the fact that you like pink... and stuff like brain analysis may help test it. ;))
Well, yes, some are difficult to test... but then one can argue the reasoning for having them.
Oh, just to clarify, I was proposing a sort of 5-second-meta-skill of "remembering your rationalist knowledge/skills when you need them", the "remember politics is the mind killer" being an example rather than one I wanted to single out.
*blinks at the edit* erm? disregard which part/aspect of it? (ie, are you retracting a claim, or...?)