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.

CronoDAS comments on Evolutionary psychology as "the truth-killer" - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Benedict 23 July 2012 08:44PM

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

Comments (69)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: CronoDAS 24 July 2012 02:32:48AM *  8 points [-]

And of course, I'm talking to a guy with an especially exacting definition of "truth" (100% certainty about the territory)- I could use an LW post that succinctly discusses the role and definition of truth, there.

It's not an LW post, but how about an Isaac Asimov essay instead?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 24 July 2012 04:00:32AM 1 point [-]

That's a great essay-- not only does it have a detailed history of the refinement of various scientific concepts, it's got a sketch of the idea of guessing the teacher's password with some clues about what better teaching would look like.

Comment author: Cyan 25 July 2012 02:00:39PM 0 points [-]

That's a nice essay, but it's worth noting that Asimov misunderstands the question of Newtonian versus relativistic physics. In particular, nothing in Newtonian physics requires light to propagate instantaneously.

Comment author: Kindly 25 July 2012 02:31:38PM 4 points [-]

I think he means it in the sense that if you take relativistic equations, and substitute infinity in for c (or, more rigorously, take the limit as c goes to infinity), you will get Newtonian equations. Thus the behavior of objects at small speeds is roughly Newtonian, because c is already well on its way to infinity compared to those speeds; conversely, when an object is traveling at a rate of 0.1c, it matters greatly that c is finite.

Comment author: Cyan 25 July 2012 07:42:58PM 4 points [-]

Upon re-reading, I see that you are probably correct. Thanks!

Comment author: [deleted] 25 July 2012 02:57:35PM *  3 points [-]

<nitpick>

conversely, when an object is traveling at a rate of 0.1c, it matters greatly that c is finite.

Not that greatly: the size of most relativistic effects is v²/2c² + O(v^4) which for v = 0.1c is 0.005. I would have used a bigger number for the example, say 0.9c.

</nitpick>