TheAncientGeek comments on No Universally Compelling Arguments in Math or Science - Less Wrong

30 Post author: ChrisHallquist 05 November 2013 03:32AM

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

Comments (227)

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

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 06 November 2013 01:58:41PM -2 points [-]

But it may be in the mind's best interests to refuse to be persuaded by some specific class of argument: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it" (Upton Sinclair). For any supposed UCA, one can construct a situation in which a mind can rationally choose to ignore it

Where rationally means "instrumentally rationally".

ou don't even need to construct particularly far-fetched scenarios: we already see plenty of humans who benefit from ignoring scientific arguments in favor of religious ones, ignoring unpopular but true claims in order to promote claims that make them more popular, etc.

But they are not generally considered paragons of rationality. In fact, they are biased, and bias is considered inimical to rationality. Even by EY. At least when he is discussing humans.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 06 November 2013 03:30:00PM *  3 points [-]

Given that dspeyer specified "minds that are capable of functioning in a moderately complex environment", instrumental rationality seems like the relevant criteria to use.