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.

buybuydandavis comments on Request for Steelman: Non-correspondence concepts of truth - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: PeerGynt 24 March 2015 03:11AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (74)

Comments (74)

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

Comment author: buybuydandavis 25 March 2015 03:35:25AM 1 point [-]

PeerGynt

In other words, if I truly believed this, I would label most people as being too stupid to have a real discussion with.

Stupid's got nothing to do with it.

Are you so sure your preferred Truth modalities are better than theirs at winning? Probably, through most of human history, and even today, a dominant Correspondence to Reality modality was an evolutionary and personal loser.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 27 March 2015 10:17:13AM 0 points [-]

Are you so sure your preferred Truth modalities are better than theirs at winning?

I you would have thought a discussion of the nature of truth came under epistemic rationality.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 March 2015 08:10:24PM 0 points [-]

See paragraph

Second, consider a Truth...

Epistemically accurate statements are only a subset of winning statements. Actually, that's only "some epistemically accurate statements", as others are losers in some use contexts.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 27 March 2015 08:19:17PM *  0 points [-]

See paragraph

Second, consider a Truth...

Indeed: Some winning statements aren't true, so truth shouldn't be casually equated with winning.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 March 2015 02:57:50AM 0 points [-]

Not how I was using the term:

Paragraph 2:

Consider Truths as the winning statements,...

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit