= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FiftyTwo comments on Open Thread, December 1-15, 2012 - 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)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
How should one distinguish disgreement on empirical grounds vs disagreement about values? I'm increasingly convinced I'm miscalibrated on this.
My usual approach is to keep asking variations on "What would you expect to experience if that were false?"
If that question has an answer, we're still in the realm of the empirical.
If it doesn't, it's possible we've transitioned into the realm of disagreement about values.
Can you give an example of a disagreement?
Friend proposes policy A, I think policy A is obviously bad. How do I most efficiently determine whether we have fundamentally different values or believe different facts to be the case?
"I think policy A is bad because it would cause B."
"But policy A wouldn't cause B. Also it would cause C which is good."
"If policy A did turn out to cause B, would A still be good?"