= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Pancritical Rationalism Can Apply to Preferences and Behavior - 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 (29)
Refuting something is justifying that it is false. The point of the OP is that you can't justify anything, so it's claiming that you can't refute "all swans are white". A black swan is simply a criticism of the statement "all swans are white". You still have a choice -- you can see the black swan and reject "all swans are white", or you can quibble with the evidence in a large number of ways which I'm sure you know of too and keep on believing "all swans are white". People really do that; searching Google for "Rapture schedule" will pull up a prominent and current example.
Fine. If criticism is just a loose sort of refutation, then I'll invent something that is just a loose kind of inductive support, let's say schmitticism, and then I'll claim that every time I see a white swan, that schmitticises the claim that all swans are white, and Popper can't say schmitticisim doesn't work because there are no particular well-defined standards or mechanisms of schmitticism for his arguments to latch onto.