= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Juno_Watt comments on What do professional philosophers believe, and why? - 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 (249)
I don't know what you mean by "fact of the matter". It's not a problem that meta-level isn't object level, any more than it's a problem that cats aren't dogs. I also don't think that there is any problem in identifying the meta level. Philosophers "don't deal with words" in the sense that linguists. They use words to do things, as do many other specialities. You seem to be making the complaint that success isn't well defined in philosophy, but that would require treating object level science as much more algorithmic than it actually is. What makes a scientific theory a good theory? Most scientists agree on it?
An actual truth about the world.
Have you read A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation?
I don't know what you mean by that. Is Gresham's law such a truth?
My question was rhetorical. Science does not deal entirely in directly observable empirical facts -- which might be what you meant by "actual truths about the world". Those who fly under the Bayesian flag by and large don't either: most of the material on this site is just as indirect/meta-levle/higher-level as philosophy. I just don't see anything that justifies the "Boo!" rhetoric.
Actually, perhaps you should try The Simple Truth, because you seem totally confused.
Yes, a lot of the material on this site is philosophy; I would argue that it is correspondingly more likely to be wrong, precisely because is not subject to the same feedback loops as science. This is why EY keeps asking, "How do I use this to build an AI?"
So...is Gresham;s Law an actual truth about the world?
Now I'm confused. Is that likely to be wrong or not?
As far as I can tell, yes (in a limited form), but I'm prepared for an economist to tell me otherwise.
If we consider it as a definition, then it is either useful or not useful.
The focus of the question was "about the world". Gresham's law, if true, is not a direct empirical fact like the metling point of aluminium, not is it built into the fabric of the universe, since it is indefinable without humans and their economic activity.
So this is about the "true" part, not about the "actual world" part? In that case, You are';t complaining that philosophy ins;t connected to reality, your claiming that it is all false. In that case I will have to ask you when and how you became omniscient.
Humans are part of the world.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. Yes, if you are confused about what truth means, a definition would be useful; I think The Simple Truth is a pretty useful one (if rather long-winded, as is typical for Yudkowsky). It doesn't tell you much about the actual world (except that it hints at a reasonable justification for induction, which is developed more fully elsewhere).
But I'm not sure why you think I am claiming philosophy is all false.
Then there is no reason why some philosopihical claims about human nature could not count as Actual Truths About The World, refuting your original point.
That depends on what you mean by "human nature," but yes, some such claims could. However, they aren't judged based on this (outside of experimental philosophy, of course). So, there is no feedback loop.