Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Lumifer comments on "Flinching away from truth” is often about *protecting* the epistemology - Less Wrong

74 Post author: AnnaSalamon 20 December 2016 06:39PM

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

Comments (56)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 25 December 2016 03:06:03AM 1 point [-]

why stop to declare it irrational in the first place?

Because for me there are basically three ways to evaluate some course of action. You can say that it's perfectly fine and that's that (let's call it "rational"). You can say that it's crazy and you don't have a clue why someone is doing this (let's call it "inexplicable"). And finally, you can say that it's a mistaken course of action: you see the goal, but the road chosen doesn't lead there. I would call this "irrational".

Within this framework, calling something "irrational" is the only way to "dig further and try to figure out why".

With regard to "suboptimal" vs "irrational", I read it completely differently.

So we have a difference in terminology. That's not unheard of :-)

Comment author: jimmy 30 December 2016 10:04:52PM 2 points [-]

Interesting. I dig into plenty of things before concluding that I know what their goal is and that they will fail, and I don’t see what is supposed to be stopping me from doing this. I’m not sure why “I don’t [yet] have a clue why” gets rounded to “inexplicable”.