= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Problematic Problems for TDT - 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 (298)
So, what ought one do when interested in a problem (decision theory or otherwise) that one does not yet understand well enough to formalize?
I suspect "go do something else until a proper formalization presents itself" is not the best possible answer for all problems, nor is "work silently on formalizing the problem and don't express or defend a position on it until I've succeeded."
How about "work on formalizing the problem (silently or collaboratively, whatever your style is) and do not defend a position that cannot be successfully defended or refuted"?
Fair enough.
Is there a clear way to distinguish positions worth arguing without formality (e.g., the one you are arguing here) from those that aren't (e.g., the one you are arguing ought not be argued here)?
It's a good question. There ought to be, but I am not sure where the dividing line is.