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.

Vladimir_Nesov comments on Open Thread, April 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 01 April 2012 04:24AM

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

Comments (150)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 April 2012 09:05:42PM *  8 points [-]

What do you mean, "incorrect"? Matching a concept generates connotational inferences, some of which are true, while others don't hold. If the weight of such incorrect inferences is great enough, using that category becomes misleading, in which case it's best to avoid. Just form a new category, and attach the attributes that do fit, without attaching those that don't.

If you are still compelled to make analogies with existing categories that poorly match, point out specific inferences that you are considering in forming an analogy. For example, don't just say "Is cryonics like a religion?", but "Cryonics promises immortality (just as many religions do); does it follow that its claims are factually incorrect (just as religions' claims are)?" Notice that the inference is only suggested by the analogy, but it's hard to make any actual use of it to establish the claim's validity.