= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Randaly comments on Three ways CFAR has changed my view of rationality - 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 (58)
The terminology is a bit new to me, but it seems to me epistemic and instrumental rationality are necessarily identical.
If epistemic rationality is implementation of any of a set of reliable procedures for making true statements about reality, and instrumental rationality is use of any of a set of reliable procedures for achieving goals, then the latter is contained in the former, since reliably achieving goals entails possession of some kind of high-fidelity model of reality.
Furthermore, what kind of rationality does not pursue goals? If I have no interest in chess, and ability to play chess will have no impact on any of my present or future goals, then it would seem to be irrational of me to learn to play chess.
Loosely speaking, epistemic and instrumental rationality are prescriptions for the two sides of the is/ought gap. While 'ought statements' generally need to make reference to 'is statements', they cannot be entirely reduced to them.
One possible goal is to have false beliefs about reality; another is to have no impact on reality. (For humans in particular, there are unquestionably some facts that are both true and harmful (i.e. instrumentally irrational) to learn.)
Epistemic rationality.
(I assume that you mean 'isn't about pursuing goals.' Otherwise, epistemic rationality might pursue the goal of matching the map to the territory.)