= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on Natural Laws Are Descriptions, not Rules - 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 (234)
What is, actually, the difference between laws as rules and laws as descriptions of regularity, except the choice of language? There is in fact a pretty strong LW consensus that beliefs should be distinguishable from each other by different anticipated experiences; I am not sure whether nomic and mereological reductionism predict different observations.
(I agree with the gist of the post, in the sense that it is more elegant to view physical laws as descriptions of regularities in observed universe, rather than rules that push matter around.)
See my comment here. Thinking of laws as rules vs. descriptions may not predict different observations, but they do lead to different cognitive attitudes about scientific inquiry and explanation (e.g. we often think of rules as explaining behavior, but we don't think of descriptions as explanatory in the same way), and in this regard I think the prescriptive perspective is a recipe for confusion. One could say the same thing about the kind of empiricism advocated on LW as opposed to rationalism (of the traditional philosophical variety, not the LW variety). These two philosophical stances don't predict different observations, but that doesn't mean the choice between them is merely a linguistic one. They are associated with different pragmatic attitudes, and the empiricist attitude is a lot more valuable that the rationalist one.
What concrete differences in e.g. scientific achievements would you expect to stem from the difference between the descriptive and prescriptive attitudes?
See this comment for an example.
Not really.
I know that post and don't think it invalidates my point. Its main point is that for a proposition to be meaningful it is not necessary that it can be verified directly, but it is often sufficient if the proposition is part of a logically coherent theory that is tested as a whole. This is not in conflict with the demand on difference in anticipated experiences from different beliefs: the hypothesis that a cheesecake materialised in the centre of the Sun may not be falsified by direct observation, but still is incompatible with the picture of the world dictated by perfectly testable and verified physical theories.
As a side note, the linked post has been criticised as strawmanning logical positivism.
So what testable logically coherent theory is your main point a part of?
Do you want to read about the testable consequences of the belief that beliefs should have testable consequences, or was your question only rhetorical?
I'd actually find that fascinating :)
Are they similar to this?
One testable consequence of the belief that beliefs should have testable consequences (let's call it T) is that people who believe T will have higher percentage of true beliefs than people who don't. Although this is not much a consequence of T as a more precise reformulation thereof.
You do realize you can apply that procedure to give any metaphysical belief testable consequences, including the one you were asking about here.
Well, yes. That was basically pragmatist's answer to my question which I have accepted.
It is a little bit disturbing since I am forced to give metaphysics more credit that I used to. The possible way out is to limit the testability criterion only to direct logical consequences of beliefs so that it doesn't apply to "psychological" consequences of form "believing X increases likelihood of believing Y (even if there is no logical connection between X and Y)". This might be a good idea but I am not sure where precisely to draw the line between direct and psychological consequences of beliefs.
Why do you care?