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.

shaih comments on Falsifiable and non-Falsifiable Ideas - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: shaih 19 February 2013 02:24AM

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

Comments (40)

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

Comment author: shaih 19 February 2013 07:28:04AM *  0 points [-]

What is this referring to?

I think you've lost track of why we were talking about Einstein. In the original post, you listed two reasons to believe non-falsifiable things. I asked you to give an example of the first one. Maybe it wasn't sufficiently clear that I was asking for an example which wasn't falsifiable, in which case I apologize, but I was (after all, that's why it came up in the first place). Relativity is falsifiable. A heuristic that beautiful things tend to be true is also falsifiable.

quote break

Whether or not you do, most people do not optimize for truth. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, and in either case, why?

Perhaps it would be easier for me to replace the word happiness with Awesomeness in which case I could see the argument that optimizing for awesomeness would let me seek out ways to make the world more awesome and would allow specific circumstances of what i consider awesome to be to govern which truths to seek out. In this way I can understand optimizing for awesomeness.

I think it is a good thing most people do not optimize for truth because if it were so I don't think the resulting world would be awesome. It would be a world where many people were less happy even though it would also probably be a world with more scientific advances.

I suppose that if anyone were to optimize for truth it would be a minority who wanted to advance science further to make the general population more happy while the scientist themselves were not always. Even in this case I could understand the argument that they were optimizing awesomeness not truth because they thought the resulting world would be more awesome.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 19 February 2013 07:43:15AM *  0 points [-]

I still don't see how anything you've said about Einstein is relevant to the original question I asked, which was for an example of a belief that you thought was beautiful, non-falsifiable, and worth holding.

I think it is a good thing most people do not optimize for truth because if it were so I don't think the resulting world would be awesome. It would be a world where many people were less happy even though it would also probably be a world with more scientific advances.

Cool. So we agree now that truth does not trump awesomeness? (Somewhat tangential comment: science is not the only way to seek out truth. I also have in mind things like finding out whether you were adopted.)

Comment author: shaih 19 February 2013 07:49:16AM 2 points [-]

You're right Einstien was not relevant to your original question. I brought him up because I did not understand the question until

I think you've lost track of why we were talking about Einstein. In the original post, you listed two reasons to believe non-falsifiable things. I asked you to give an example of the first one. Maybe it wasn't sufficiently clear that I was asking for an example which wasn't falsifiable, in which case I apologize, but I was (after all, that's why it came up in the first place). Relativity is falsifiable. A heuristic that beautiful things tend to be true is also falsifiable.

Thanks for leading me to the conclusion truth does not trump awesomeness and yes I now agree with this.

I also have in mind things like finding out whether you were adopted

Good point