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.

Carinthium comments on Skepticism about Probability - Less Wrong Discussion

-8 Post author: Carinthium 27 January 2014 09:49AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (129)

Comments (129)

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

Comment author: Carinthium 28 January 2014 02:54:05AM -1 points [-]

Complete elimination of error would logically imply knowing the truth.

Something like empirical positivism is like a castle on air- it makes assumptions with no basis in reality.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 January 2014 02:01:53PM 0 points [-]

Given that it happens within physical brains it obviously does have at least some basis in reality.

Genuine deep skepticism doesn't happen in real brains and therefore has no basis in reality.

Comment author: Carinthium 28 January 2014 03:24:05PM -1 points [-]

Circular argument- You assume a basis in reality which assumes skepticism is wrong.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 January 2014 03:45:26PM 0 points [-]

Either there a reality and then there a basis or there reality in the first place and it's meaningless to speak about things having a basis in reality.

I mean do you believe that reality has a basis in reality?

Comment author: Carinthium 30 January 2014 03:32:21AM -1 points [-]

I think we mean different things by "basis in reality". I use it to refer to something correlating with the real world, and evidence that demonstrates such a connection either probable or certain. Probability, of course, can only work if probability were somehow demonstrated valid.

Circular arguments do not count as a basis in reality, hence your argument, which assumes the existence of physical brains, does not work.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit