PhilGoetz comments on Marketing rationalism - Less Wrong

10 Post author: PhilGoetz 12 April 2009 09:41PM

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

Comments (61)

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

Comment author: badger 12 April 2009 10:27:01PM 1 point [-]

The approach Jaynes takes in the opening chapters Probability: The Logic of Science based on Cox's theorem was very persuasive to me and the few others I've mentioned it to. The basic idea is to start with a few criteria that just seem like common sense that everyone should agree are desirable in a reasoning system. Then Jaynes shows that probability theory is the only possible system that fulfills these criteria.

Is there a similar approach that can be used to argue to rationality in general? I like to appeal to universiality. Different subjects should be governed by the same rules. And science and rationality have been enormously successful, so why shouldn't it be applied universally. Unfortunately, this approach can easily be abused. Can we formulate a good approach of this sort that isn't just leading people to say what we want?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 12 April 2009 10:39:22PM 0 points [-]

I'm not talking about convincing people who believe in reason to use probability theory. I meant, people who don't accept reason as the final arbiter in arguments. Which may still be most people.

Comment author: badger 12 April 2009 11:03:53PM 1 point [-]

I may have been unclear. I only meant Jaynes's approach as an analogy. I was speculating whether an approach based on common-sense desirata would work as well for rationality in general as it does for probability.