= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala comments on Smart non-reductionists, philosophical vs. engineering mindsets, and religion - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (47)
It takes a very valid concern ("don't use your models beyond their domain of applicability") which smart people are likely to agree with, and generalizes it to make an argument against reductionism. In order to realize what's wrong with the argument, you need to be aware of concepts such as privileging the hypothesis, which many people aren't. At the same time, it also appeals to people's desire to not be extremists and take the middle ground. The combination of those two factors makes it very compelling for a certain kind of mindset.
I don't see how ("don't use your models beyond their domain of applicability") is a relevant critique. Eliezer pretty much already addressed that in the sequences quite handily. Additionally it seems that you are praising the rhetoric, not the argument itself.
I said that the argument is interesting because it helps better understand how non-reductionists think, not because it'd convince somebody who'd read the Sequences. And yes, part of what made it interesting was seeing it use the kind of rhetoric that I felt would be persuasive to many, which helped further explain why they'd believe in it.
That makes sense.