= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on SUGGEST and VOTE: Posts We Want to Read on Less Wrong - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (102)
I'm saying that the "confusion-extinguishing" heuristic is a better one for identifying good answers to philosophical questions, as judged by me, and probably as judged by you as well.
Also that, given the topic matter, truth may be undecidable for some questions (owing to the process by which philosophers arrived at them), in which case you'd want the confusion-extinguishing answer anyway.
Better than what? Better than "it seems true to me"? But I didn't ask for "Answers That Seem True".
"Confusion-extinguishing" may be the best heuristic I have now for arriving at the truth, but if someone else has come up with better heuristics, I want them to write about the answers they arrived at using those heuristics. I think I was right to identify what I actually want, which is truth, and not answers satisfying a particular heuristic.
Do you want to know whether "100 angels can dance on the head of a pin" is true, or do you want the confusion that generated that question to be extinguished?
(It's true, by the way.)