= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ShardPhoenix comments on Interlude for Behavioral Economics - 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)
I think he means that many elegant, simple hypothesis have obscure counterexamples, not that the Machiguenga Indians are typically one of those counterexamples.
Is there not already a past sequence/post dealing with the creation of such ambiguities when there are multiple plausible implicit statements inferable from an inexact syntactical construction? I thought I saw something along those lines somewhere yesterday, but I can't seem to find it by just retracing my steps.
I genuinely can't tell if this is intentional.