TheOtherDave comments on Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: whpearson 01 May 2013 10:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (648)

Tags: open_thread

Comments (648)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 11 May 2013 10:34:55PM * 0 points [-]

I don't believe that there is only one correct "methodology," and so I don't believe that evidence necessarily entails one thing or the other.

I see. I apologize; I missed this the first time you said it.

So, on your view, what does it mean to evaluate evidence reliably, if not that sufficiently reliable evaluations of given evidence will converge on the same confidence in given propositions? What does it mean for a methodology to be correct, if not that it leads a system that implements it to a given confidence in given propositions given evidence?

Or, to put it differently... well, let's back up a step. Why should anyone care about evaluating evidence reliably? Why not evaluate it unreliably instead, or not bother evaluating it at all?

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 12 May 2013 09:19:56PM * 1 point [-]

Well, I certainly agree about fallibility. Humans don't have access to infallible epistemologies.

That said, if fasting and prayer reliably gets me the most useful confidence levels in propositions for achieving my goals, then I should engage in fasting and prayer because that's part of the most reliable process for evaluating evidence.

If it doesn't, then that's not a reason for me to engage in fasting and prayer, though I may choose to do so for other reasons.

Either one of those things is true, or the other is. And I may not know enough about the world to decide with confidence which it is (though I sure do seem to), but even if I don't my ignorance doesn't somehow make it the case that they are both true.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 May 2013 10:14:24PM -2 points [-]

Is there no possibility of partly true?

reliably gets me the most useful

These words seem subjective or at the very least unmeasurable. There is no way of determining absolutely whether something is "reliable" or "useful" without ridiculously technical definitions, which ruin the point anyway.

(sorry if I don't respond right away. I've been retributively downvoted to -15 and so LW is giving me a hassle about commenting. The forum programming meant well...)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 13 May 2013 02:15:08AM 4 points [-]

sorry if I don't respond right away. I've been [...] downvoted to -15

That's OK. If we no longer have any way of agreeing on whether propositions are useful, reliable, or true, or agreeing on what it means for propositions to be any of these things, then I don't anticipate the discussion going anywhere from here that's worth my time. We can let it drop here.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 May 2013 12:56:33AM 2 points [-]

(sorry if I don't respond right away. I've been retributively downvoted to -15 and so LW is giving me a hassle about commenting. The forum programming meant well...)

Working as intended. Evangelism of terrible thinking is not welcome here. For most intents and purposes you are a troll. It's time for you to go and time for me to start downvoting anyone who feeds you. Farewell Ibidem (if you the user behind the handle ever happen to gain an actual sincere interest in rationality I recommend creating a new account and making a fresh start.)

TheOtherDave comments on Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (648)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (648)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login