= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
novalis 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)
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.
Based on what? Is Gresham's law based on "this"?
Just a friendly advice. Having looked through your comment history I have noticed that you have trouble interpreting the statements of others charitably. This is fine for debate-style arguments, but is not a great idea on this forum, where winning is defined by collectively constructing a more accurate map, not as an advantage in a zero-sum game. (Admittedly, this is the ideal case, the practice is unfortunately different.) Anyway, consider reading the comments you are replying to in the best possible way first.
Speaking of which, I I honestly had no idea what the "this" meant. Do you?
That comment could have been more clear. My apologies.
Philosophers are not judged based on whether their claims accurately describe the world. This was my original point, which I continue to stand by.
OK, it has been established that you attach True to the sentence:
"Philosophers are not judged based on whether their claims accurately describe the world".
The question is what that means. We have established that philosophical claims can be about the world, and it seems uncontroversial that some of the make true claims some of the time, since they all disagree with each other and therefore can't all be wrong.
The problem is presumably the epistemology, the justification. Perhaps you mean that philosophy doesn't use enough empiricism. Although it does use empiricism sometimes, and it is not that every scientific question can be settled empirically.