= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
calef comments on Bayesian Epistemology vs Popper - 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 (226)
Where don't you like it? I don't think anyone actually argues for your first definition, because, like I said, it's silly. I think curi's point is that fallibilism is predicated on your second definition not (ever?) being a valid claim.
My point is that the things we are "certain" about (as per your second definition) probably coincide almost exactly with "statements without criticism" as per curi's definition(s).
It is a silly definition, but people are silly enough that I hear it often enough to be wary of it.
I interpreted this as the first definition. I guess we should see what curi says.
people genrally try to have their cake and eat it: they want certainty to mean "cannot be wrong", but only on the basis that they feel sure.