Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

orthonormal comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - Less Wrong

25 Post author: orthonormal 26 December 2011 10:57PM

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

Comments (1430)

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

Comment author: orthonormal 28 December 2011 01:27:08AM 4 points [-]

Because, in the end, there is no absolute truth, only facts and opinions.

There are several different things you could mean by this. Do you agree that, outside of human cognition, some things happen rather than others? And also, isn't it practically useful if our expectations are in line with the sorts of things that actually happen?

Comment author: rv77ax 28 December 2011 06:36:58AM *  -2 points [-]

There are several different things you could mean by this.

Yes. The big context are science and ethics. In science, we work with facts, and from them we develop a hypothesis (opinion). Someone can agree with one hypothesis, and become true, until it proven otherwise. In ethics, everything is just opinions.

Do you agree that, outside of human cognition, some things happen rather than others?

Yes. If I can simplify it, only one thing is happened outside of our cognition, and its linear with time.

isn't it practically useful if our expectations are in line with the sorts of things that actually happen?

No. I think that would become confirmation bias.

Comment author: orthonormal 01 January 2012 06:19:04PM *  0 points [-]

isn't it practically useful if our expectations are in line with the sorts of things that actually happen?

No. I thing that would become confirmation bias.

So you do accept scientific evidence, then- simple (approximate) models that explain well-verified patterns should be taken as practically true, until their limits are found. Right?

(Otherwise, on what grounds do you cite research about confirmation bias?)

Comment author: TimS 01 January 2012 06:26:03PM *  1 point [-]

Link to a previous discussion I had about post-modernism and science. Brief summary: Models - no, Predictions - yes.

Comment author: rv77ax 03 January 2012 06:43:51PM *  0 points [-]

So you do accept scientific evidence, then- simple (approximate) models that explain well-verified patterns should be taken as practically true, until their limits are found. Right?

Yes and no, depends on the context. In reality, some of patterns can be taken as practically true and some of it is not.

As an example, If I drop something from top of building, it's always go down to the ground; this pattern is always reproducible with the same result by all peoples who can test it. But, if I drink hot water when I'm sick and I get healthy in the next morning, that would become biased, because it's not always reproducible with the same result.

I think, it's only a matter of how someone defined the value for "well-verified" and "limit" until it become true for himself.

Comment author: orthonormal 03 January 2012 09:42:38PM 0 points [-]

So you're talking about a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one- we should be far more skeptical about our generalizations than we're inclined to be. A good point in this community, but phrasing it as "no truth" probably communicates the wrong concept.