You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

prase comments on Starting point for calculating inferential distance? - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: JenniferRM 03 December 2010 08:20PM

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

Comments (8)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: prase 03 December 2010 09:11:20PM *  3 points [-]

One of the things I hate in mathematical textbooks are proofs left as exercises for the reader.

I would be really interested to know what conclusion you have made about inferential distance.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 04 December 2010 04:26:26PM 2 points [-]

I would be really interested to know what conclusion you have made about inferential distance.

Jennifer is suggesting that these ideas could be used to quantify inferential distances. A first attempt might be to say that a Speaker and a Listener are separated by a large inferential distance when the Speaker has a much larger value for P(U|T) than the Listener does.

There seems to me to be something important left out, though. I take inferential distances to be about differences in the plausibility of a conclusion to different people. Even if you understand my claim perfectly (ie, you've mapped my U to the proper T) you might still consider T to be almost certainly wrong, while I consider T to be an inevitable conclusion of self-evident premises, even if it takes a long chain of inferences to get to the conclusion from the premises.

Comment author: prase 04 December 2010 10:43:50PM 2 points [-]

Speaking from my personal experience, when I as a listener had problems accepting a conclusion which was considered natural and perhaps obvious by the speaker, it was rarely because I misinterpreted the meaning (now I am apeaking about conclusions which I have accepted as obvious later, so that I can judge whether I understood what has been said earlier). The reason was rather that I lacked some background knowledge or thinking habits which caused my P(T) being low, not P(U|T).

Comment author: arundelo 03 December 2010 11:19:30PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 04 December 2010 11:37:35AM 1 point [-]

And remember, if that one doesn't strike your fancy, you can always employ one of these alternative ways for proving your result.