= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SaidAchmiz comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013) - 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 (1750)
Oh, and another thing:
What do you mean, "optimal"? Look, for any question where there is, in principle, a correct answer (which might not be known), the totality of the information available to us at any given time will point to some answer (which might not be the correct one, given incomplete information). Arguments for that answer might be correct. Arguments for some other answer will be wrong.
Why would we expect there to be good arguments for the wrong answer?
What does two-sided discourse look like, in your view?
It may help to note that ibidem has made earlier claims about how the meaning of "reliably evaluate evidence" is variable, so I suspect they would reject the claim that there's a correct answer towards which available information points at any given time.
More specifically, I would expect them to claim that there can be two or more mutually exclusive answers to which the same information points equally strongly, "depending on your paradigm."