= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on Consequentialism Need Not Be Nearsighted - 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 (118)
How would this be different than inserting epicycles to express geocentrism as heliocentrism? From consequentialist and deontological perspectives, I don't think this is an insight that dissolves the question.
The difference is that this is an 'ought' problem rather than an 'is' problem and we have no reason to believe our values should be simple.
There are various distinguishing points between geocentrism and heliocentrism - one is that heliocentrism had fewer free parameters. More elaborately: Certain parameters of the epicycles had to be delicately balanced, and heliocentrism "predicted" that those parameters would be turn out to be balanced. This sense of prediction has nothing to do with previous-in-time, and everything to do with opportunities for falsification; if ever those parameters drifted from perfect balance, heliocentrism would be falsified. Heliocentrism was preferable (even though it was slightly less accurate at first) because it exposed itself to a more stringent test.
Overall, what I'm saying is that those two theories are asymmetric.