= 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)
Why do you care?
To have an objective criterion for evaluating ideas in case my intuition is ifluenced by bias. To find out what exactly makes most metaphysics appear unsatisfactory and empty to me. Why are people concerned with formalising epistemology, after all?
By the way, you don't need to link to the Sequences articles for me, I have read them all.
What do any of those have to do with where you "draw the line between direct and psychological consequences of beliefs"?
If I aim to apply the criterion "a theory is worthy only if it has direct logical testable consequences", I better know what do I mean by "direct consequence".