Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Peterdjones comments on Empirical claims, preference claims, and attitude claims - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: John_Maxwell_IV 15 November 2012 07:41PM

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

Comments (125)

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

Comment author: handoflixue 21 November 2012 09:35:11PM 1 point [-]

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Highly_Advanced_Epistemology_101_for_Beginners

You seem deeply confused by what is meant by "truth". Suffice to say, "not questioned by most people" has nothing to do with what I mean by the word.

Comment author: Peterdjones 21 November 2012 09:56:46PM -2 points [-]

You seem deeply confused by what is meant by "truth"

"if you are not cofused by it, you don't understand it".

, "not questioned by most people" has nothing to do with what I mean by the word.

You may mean something that floats free of common intutions. I can only wish you the best of luck in arguing a theory of truth from ground zero -- an intuition-free basis.

Empirical truth? I have the intuition that if I can see and touch it, its there. How can I prove that?

Mathematical truth? I have the intution that if you can prove something from intuittivle obvious axioms truth-value-preserving rules of inference, then they are true But why would the axioms be true absent intution? and what's so specual about truth-preservation?

Etc

Etc.

Whole History of Human Thought 101.

Comment author: handoflixue 26 November 2012 06:57:00PM 0 points [-]

I've been assuming troll for a bit, but it seems silly to wager on it since you could just lie to me. Although I suppose to YOU it wouldn't be a lie, since your intuitions on truth make everything you say automatically true. Neat trick, but it doesn't really work when someone can link you to an actual working, usable definition of truth. Maybe you are just very bad at reading? If so, you might want to try a different site. We use a lot of big words here.

I suppose I shouldn't feed you, but I'm finding you a sort of adorable troll. Not that I'll actually be responding further :)

Comment author: Peterdjones 26 November 2012 11:07:29PM 0 points [-]

Although I suppose to YOU it wouldn't be a lie, since your intuitions on truth make everything you say automatically true

That's not what I am arguing a all. I am only appealing to the widespread idea that a subjects testimony about their own subjective tastes, thougnts, beliefs and preferences is correct by default. I don't think people can subjectivey make 2+2=5, if that needs pointing out.I chose liking vanilla as an example for a reason.

Maybe you are just very bad at reading?

That is a rather ironic comment, given that you have badly misunderstood me.

Comment author: shminux 26 November 2012 08:32:27PM *  0 points [-]

I suppose I shouldn't feed you, but I'm finding you a sort of adorable troll. Not that I'll actually be responding further :)

In case you need help making up your mind, I have added Peterdjones to my ignore list a month or two ago, after realizing the futility of the discussions I had had with him/her before then. Having scanned through what they wrote since, I realize that this was indeed a good choice.

Comment author: handoflixue 26 November 2012 10:44:04PM 0 points [-]

Oooh, I didn't realize there was an ignore list. Thank you indeed :)

Comment author: shminux 26 November 2012 11:47:37PM 0 points [-]

Umm, it's in my head :) After years on IRC and online forums I found that this to be a useful way to prevent people from getting under my skin. Once someone is classified as incapable of an intelligent discussion I find the stuff they write not nearly as annoying. YMMV.

Comment author: Peterdjones 26 November 2012 11:24:48PM *  -1 points [-]

Oh, you're the person who doens't believe in reality. I don't mind you ingoring me, but you should really have chat with handoflixue.