= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Amanda Knox: post mortem - 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 (483)
Suit yourself, but you will be missing the problem with loqi's statement.
Again, it's your choice. But I think that answering the question will help you to see why it's not necessarily a contradiction to (1) have one's livelihood depend on making good judgments; and (2) regularly make judgments which turn out to be wrong.
I saw that. That's why I used the word 'tension' rather than the word 'contradiction'.
(Though looking for a reference for how the word 'tension' is used in the discipline of Philosophy, I can't seem to find anything online - it's used extensively on SEP, and there was a book written in 1936 on the word's proper use, but the sense used in Philosophy doesn't even make it into OED).
Well you also said "It seems the logical conclusion is that you've lost your job."
Indeed, that's why I used the word "seems".
A good rule of thumb: If it looks like someone is making an obviously stupid mistake, you're probably misunderstanding them. It's a benefit of the principle of charity.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that you knew all along that there wasn't contradiction; that you were simply observing that there might appear to be a contradiction to some people?
Yes
No, I was initially pointing to the tension between the two statements, and underscoring that by noting the seeming implication. You did not acknowledge the tension when those statements were juxtaposed by loqi, so I was trying to make it clear that they are in apparent conflict. Given "S will lose his job if he could not X" and "S often makes mistakes when trying to X", it does not deductively follow that "S lost his job", but it's the result to bet on. Learning in that context that S did not lose his job, one should perform a Bayesian update to decrease the probability of the premises.
Ok, I see your point now. But using the same principle of charity, it's easy enough to read my statements so that they are not in contradiction (or tension) with eachother.