non-expert comments on The Fallacy of Gray - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 January 2008 06:24AM

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

Comments (78)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 January 2013 10:36:08AM -2 points [-]

i referenced confidence only because Mugasofer did. What was your understanding of how Mugasofer used "confident as we should be"? Regardless, I am still wondering what the value of being "right" is if we can't determine what is in fact right?

Because it helps us make decisions.

Incidentally, replacing words that may be unclear or misunderstood (by either party) with what we mean by those words is generally considered helpful 'round here for producing fruitful discussions - there's no point arguing about whether the tree in the forest made a sound if I mean "auditory experience" and you mean "vibrations in the air". This is known as "Rationalist's Taboo", after a game with similar rules, and replacing a word with (your) definition is known as "tabooing" it.

Comment author: non-expert 14 January 2013 07:55:45AM 0 points [-]

I actually don't think we're using the word differently -- the issue was premised solely for issues where the answer cannot be known after the fact. In that case, our use of "confidence" is the same -- it simply helps you make decisions. Once the value of the decision is limited to the belief in its soundness, and not ultimate "correctness" of the decision (because it cannot be known), rationality is important only if you believe it to be correct way to make decisions.

Comment author: MugaSofer 14 January 2013 09:31:30AM -1 points [-]

Indeed. And probability is confidence, and Bayesian probability is the correct amount of confidence.