= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
curi 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)
I wasn't talking about an analogy.
Evolution is a theory which applies to any type of replicator. Not by analogy by literally applies.
Make sense so far?
That only strengthens my argument.
You said we were discussing an analogy. That was a mistake. How can having made a mistake strength your argument? When you make a mistake, and find out, you should be like "uh oh. maybe i made 2. or 3. i better rethink things a bit more carefully. maybe the mistake is caused by a misunderstanding that could cause multiple mistakes." I don't think glossing over mistakes is rational or wise.
Make sense so far?
Because if there is only an analogy between evolution and knowledge acquisition, there are some aspects of each that do are not the same, and it is possible that these differences mean that the specific factor under consideration is not the same; but if the two processes are literally the same, that is not possible.
"How can having a mistake strengthen your argument?"
Example: During WWII,many American leaders didn't believe that Germany was actually committing massacres, as they were disillusioned from similar but inaccurate WWI propaganda; however, they still believed that Nazi aggression was morally wrong. Later, the death camps were discovered. Clearly, given that they were mistaken in disbelieving in the Holocaust, they were mistaken in believing that the Nazis were morally wrong- because how can making a mistake strength your argument?