MrHen comments on The True Epistemic Prisoner's Dilemma - Less Wrong

9 Post author: MBlume 19 April 2009 08:57AM

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

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MrHen 19 April 2009 12:58:01PM 5 points [-]

It is this then which I call the true epistemic prisoner's dilemma. If I tell you a story about two doctors, even if I tell you to put yourself in the shoes of one, and not the other, it is easy for you to take yourself outside them, see the symmetry and say "the doctors should cooperate". I hope I have now broken some of that emotional symmetry.

As Omega lead the creationist to the other room, you would (I know I certainly would) make a convulsive effort to convince him of the truth of evolution.

It seems like it would be wiser to forgo the arguments for evolution and spend your time talking about cooperating.

But of course, you would fail. And the door would shut, and you would grit your teeth, and curse 2000 years of screamingly bad epistemic hygiene, and weep bitterly for the people who might die in a few hours because of your counterpart's ignorance. And then -- I hope -- you would cooperate.

By the way, while we are adding direct emotional weight to this example, the real villain here is Omega. In all honesty, the Young Earth Creationist cannot be blamed for sending untold numbers to their death because of a bad belief. The bad belief has nothing to do with the asteroid and any moral link between the two should be placed on Omega.

Comment deleted 19 April 2009 02:37:59PM [-]
Comment author: MrHen 19 April 2009 05:59:54PM *  1 point [-]

Anything that has the ability to save untold billions and will only do so if two particular individuals figure out how old the earth is evil. Or, at the very least, does not have the best interests of humanity in mind.

To belabor the point, if Omega held his hands behind his back and asked you and me to guess at whether the number of fingers he is holding up is odd or even and, if and only if we were correct, he would save lives it would be the OP's example with certainty dropped to 0. Would we be held to blame if we failed? Increasing our certainty does not increase our moral responsibility.

(Note) I think the formatting in your post may be off. The third quote looks like it may have too much included.

Comment author: randallsquared 19 April 2009 10:23:19PM 0 points [-]

Anything that has the ability to save untold billions and will only do so if two particular individuals figure out how old the earth is evil. Or, at the very least, does not have the best interests of humanity in mind.

Since I'd say that evil is just having goals which are fundamentally incompatible with mine (or whoever is considering this), I don't think there's necessarily a difference between those two statements.