Warrigal comments on Anyone want to give Holmesian reasoning a try? - Less Wrong

-4 [deleted] 28 June 2011 09:53PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (19)

Comments (19)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 29 June 2011 02:20:03AM 0 points [-]

Which one?

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 29 June 2011 02:40:06AM 3 points [-]

Gur bar gung fnlf gung gur oebxra urnqcubar vf ba gur fnzr fvqr nf gur oebxra yrt. Jul qb gurl unir nalguvat gb qb jvgu rnpu bgure?

Comment author: Manfred 29 June 2011 03:49:24AM 2 points [-]

Huh, I would have guessed you were referring to the assumptions about foot order.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 29 June 2011 03:08:44AM 1 point [-]

Agreed. Vs gur urnqcubarf unq orybatrq gb gur zbivr punenpgre engure guna gur ivrjre, jr pbhyq unir thrffrq gung gurl jrer qnzntrq va gur fnzr vapvqrag, but it didn't even make that much sense.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 June 2011 04:03:45PM 0 points [-]

A fair point. knb sums it up pretty well:

. . . I had to know you were giving hints, and that you wanted us to reason by weak association. So Holmesian reasoning is worthless unless you happen to know the situation is contrived.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit