= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loldrup comments on Je suis Charlie - 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 (72)
Indeed it is perfectly sensible from a pragmatic point of view.
But is it actual knowledge?
Knowledge in what sense? In the sense of "justified true belief" as some philosophers like to define knowledge? No, but that's a really bad notion of knowledge because pretty much nothing can be justified in the sense that such would insist upon. Can you assign really high degrees of certainty to the conclusions? Yes. If that's what knowledge is then yes, it is knowledge.
This is an interesting "rebuttal" to the goal of defining "true knowledge". I'll have to think more about this.
It may help to note that Bayesianism (the form of epistemology most popular at LW) rejects the entire idea of justified true belief or anything similar to it, and only talks about degrees of certainty, but I think you already know that.
Related articles:
How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3
Infinite Certainty
0 And 1 Are Not Probabilities
tl;dr: 100% probability = ∞ evidence; you really don't have it