= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Sawin comments on 'Is' and 'Ought' and Rationality - 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 (70)
I guess the main thing I want to suggest is that there is more than one fence that is hard/impossible to breach.
Furthermore that depending on how you define certain terms, some of the fences may or may not be breachable.
I'm also saying that non-natural "facts" are as easy to work with as natural facts. The issue that they're not part of natural science doesn't impact our ability to discuss them productively.
I agree entirely with this. This exercise isn't meant in any way to be an attack on decision theory or the likes. The target is so-called naturalism - the view that all facts are natural facts.
I see. That makes sense.