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.

AdeleneDawner comments on Norms survey (dead) - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: Cayenne 10 May 2011 11:01AM

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

Comments (71)

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

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 10 May 2011 12:45:12PM 0 points [-]

Instead of saying "we should believe that the Earth is round because it looks round when seen from the space", just say "the Earth is round because it looks round when seen from the space". The latter sentence is clearer and doesn't lack anything important which the former has.

The latter sentence parses as either malformed or false, to me. The earth appears to be round from space because it's round, not vice versa; the earth is round because of the forces that were involved in its creation.

I do agree that the 'should' needs to go, but I think the formulation should look something like 'it is rational to believe [thing] because [evidence]' or 'I/we believe [thing] because [evidence]'.

Comment author: prase 10 May 2011 12:59:13PM 1 point [-]

Fair enough. "Because" itself isn't perfectly transparent word: X because Y may mean that

  • (etymologically) Y is a cause of X: "I have been arrested because I have robbed a bank."
  • Y is a purpose for X: "I robbed the bank because I wanted the money."
  • X is logically deducible from Y: The apple fell down because of the laws of gravity.
  • (and I believed that also) X is probabilistically deducible from Y. I have used the word "because" in this sense, as a shorthand for "and the evidence for the previous claim is that", which after all may be ungrammatical.

In any case, should is redundand.

Comment author: Cayenne 10 May 2011 01:01:11PM 0 points [-]

This is a good way to formulate it. I'll implement this now.