= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Rationality Quotes Thread September 2015 - 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 (482)
I think the aim is not consensus, but consistency. If two camps hold irreconcilable views, one of them is wrong and it's highly useful to know which one. The fact that both views have some domains where they seem to work better than the other is not a good excuse.
Consistency with what. If you mean consistency with the truth, I agree. However, the context talks about consistency among expert positions, which is what is normally called consensus. Downvoted for introducing terminology for seemingly no purpose other than to confuse the issue.
True, however, pushing for consensus or consistency will not tell you which one is wrong. Rather it will result in one of them being declared "wrong", not necessarily the one that actually is.
Ok, did you mean to write this in reply to some other comment?
Internal consistency of the science as a body of knowledge. "Consistency with the truth" is better expressed by the simple adjective "true".
It's not consensus either. Consistency is a property of a theory (or a set of theories). Consensus is a property of a set of experts.
No, but it will provide impetus and motivation to find out which one is wrong.
Unless of course you're operating in a situation best modelled by paraconsistent logic.
But finding that out would require looking.
Would you care to provide some examples along with arguments why paraconsistent logic is the best way to model them?