= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Z_M_Davis comments on Escaping Your Past - 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 (49)
But if you expect the truth to be wonderful, then what do you do when you come across strong evidence for some horrifying hypothesis that makes you want to cry? And if there is no hypothesis that horrifies you, then you really must be a Vulcan ...
This is not how I understand the term rationality. I find it helpful to keep a strict type distinction: you cut everything untrue out of your beliefs, and fold everything beautiful into your utility function.
While I can imagine hypotheses that would horrify me if they turned out to be true, I cannot think of an actual case of encountering strong evidence for such a hypothesis. Even for the examples I can think of, if they were in fact true I believe I would prefer to know the truth than to continue to believe the comforting falsehood. Can you give an example of a horrifying hypothesis that you would prefer not to know the truth of even if it was in fact true?
No; like you, I want to believe the truth. (Or at least, I want to want to believe the truth. If everyone who professed to seek truth wholeheartedly really did so, the world would be very different. I cannot claim to be wholeheartedly rational; I can only claim that I try, after my fashion.) There are theories that scare me that I do want to believe if and only if they are true---I'd rather not talk about them in this comment.