Comment author:gmweinberg
07 March 2009 09:29:27PM
2 points
[-]
I'd rephrase this to emphasize the nonboolean nature of belief: an aspiring rationalist should seek to make his degree of belief in a proposition correspond to the strength of the evidence. It is also an error to have excessive confidence in a proposition that is most likely true.
Comment author:mariana
09 May 2009 09:34:16AM
0 points
[-]
I guess you are implying that using fuzzy logic can be considered rational.
I think that it means also being compliant with the inference rules
On a colloquial tone it might mean that it has the expected result a certain process
But I think it is irrational to try to be completely rational given that there is still a lot we do not know, therefore obscure/weird things appear/happen.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
I'd rephrase this to emphasize the nonboolean nature of belief: an aspiring rationalist should seek to make his degree of belief in a proposition correspond to the strength of the evidence. It is also an error to have excessive confidence in a proposition that is most likely true.
I guess you are implying that using fuzzy logic can be considered rational.
But I think it is irrational to try to be completely rational given that there is still a lot we do not know, therefore obscure/weird things appear/happen.