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.

wedrifid comments on Sarah Connor and Existential Risk - Less Wrong Discussion

-9 [deleted] 01 May 2011 06:28PM

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

Comments (77)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 01 May 2011 10:22:20PM 1 point [-]

Most statements don't hold in some contexts. Particularly, if you're advocating an implausible or subtly incorrect claim, it's easy to find a statement that holds most of the time but not for the claim in question, thus lending it connotational support of the reference class where the statement holds.

I think I agree with what you are saying. As a side note statements that include "Never. Never ever never for ever" need to do better than to 'hold in some contexts'. Because that is a lot of 'never'.