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.

argumzio comments on two puzzles on rationality of defeat - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: fsopho 12 December 2011 02:17PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (55)
Tags: epistemology defeat belief rationality evidence

Comments (55)

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

Comment author: argumzio 14 December 2011 03:41:39AM 2 points [-]

...I don't see how you can talk about "defeat" if you're not talking about justified believing

"Defeat" would solely consist in the recognition of admitting to ~T instead of T. Not a matter of belief per se.

You agree with what I said in the first bullet or not?

No, I don't.

The problem I see here is: it seems like you are assuming that the proof of ~T shows clearly the problem (i.e. the invalid reasoning step) with the proof of T I previously reasoned. If it doesn't, all the information I have is that both T and ~T are derived apparently validly from the axioms F, P1, P2, and P3.

T cannot be derived from [P1, P2, and P3], but ~T can on account of F serving as a corrective that invalidates T. The only assumptions I've made are 1) Ms. Math is not an ivory tower authoritarian and 2) that she wouldn't be so illogical as to assert a circular argument where F would merely be a premiss, instead of being equivalent to the proper (valid) conclusion ~T.

Anyway, I suppose there's no more to be said about this, but you can ask for further clarification if you want.

Comment author: Gust 14 December 2011 04:35:54AM 1 point [-]

2) that she wouldn't be so illogical as to assert a circular argument where F would merely be a premiss, instead of being equivalent to the proper (valid) conclusion ~T.

Oh, now I see what you mean. I interpreted F as a new promiss, a new axiom, not a whole argument about the (mistaken) reasoning that proved T. For example, (wikipedia tells me that) the axiom of determinacy is inconsistent with the axiom of choice. If I had proved T in ZFC, and Ms. Math asserted the Axiom of Determinacy and proved ~T in ZFC+AD, and I didn't know beforehand that AD is inconsistent with AC, I would still need to find out what was the problem.

I still think this is more consistent with the text of the original post, but now I understand what you meant by " I was being charitable with the puzzles".

Thank you for you attention.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit