= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I interpreted your comment about no absolute truth to mean something like the objects in the universe having no inherent properties (or at least less inherent properties than most might think). Was that what you meant?
I am not sure I'm fully understand about Mind Projection Fallacy, but I answered it with: Yes.
The point is the word "truth" that we, English language, use today is not truth in the sense of everything is true and everyone accept it as true; but only part of it is true, I called in facts, and the rest of the part is just an opinions.
Because, in the end, there is no absolute truth, only facts and opinions.
Eliezer's essay The Simple Truth is a nice argument for the opposite. The technical name for his view is correspondence theory. A short summary is "truth is the correspondence between map and territory" or "the sentence 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white".
Actually, The Simple Truth is one of my favorite essay, and it's not the opposite of my statement. Autrey is the one who work with facts (reality) and Mark is the one who work with opinion (belief). Who jump at the cliff at the end ?
Because, in the end, there is no absolute truth, only facts and opinions.
There are several different things you could mean by this. Do you agree that, outside of human cognition, some things happen rather than others? And also, isn't it practically useful if our expectations are in line with the sorts of things that actually happen?
There are several different things you could mean by this.
Yes. The big context are science and ethics. In science, we work with facts, and from them we develop a hypothesis (opinion). Someone can agree with one hypothesis, and become true, until it proven otherwise. In ethics, everything is just opinions.
Do you agree that, outside of human cognition, some things happen rather than others?
Yes. If I can simplify it, only one thing is happened outside of our cognition, and its linear with time.
isn't it practically useful if our expectations are in line with the sorts of things that actually happen?
No. I think that would become confirmation bias.
In response to
Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012)
Hello LW readers,
Long time lurker here. Just created this account so I can, probably, participated more in LW discussion.
I'm male, 27 years old, from Indonesia. I work as freelance software developer. I love music and watching movies. Any movies. Movie is the only way I can detached from reality and have a dream without a sleep.
I come from Muslim family, both of my parent is Muslim. Long story short, after finished my college, with computer science degree, I tried to learn extend my knowledge more in Islam. I read a lot of books about Islam history, Islam teaching, Quran commentary, book that explain hadith and Quran, etc. Every books that my parents have. Soon, with the help of Internet, I renounce my faith and become an atheist. I see rationalism, philosophy in general, as the way to see the world without giving any judgments. Because, in the end, there is no absolute truth, only facts and opinions.
I know LW from /r/truereddit, and has been reading some of the articles and discussions in here, very informative and thoughtful. The only thing I can help here probably by translating some of articles, especially the Sequences, into Bahasa Indonesia.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
So you do accept scientific evidence, then- simple (approximate) models that explain well-verified patterns should be taken as practically true, until their limits are found. Right?
(Otherwise, on what grounds do you cite research about confirmation bias?)
Yes and no, depends on the context. In reality, some of patterns can be taken as practically true and some of it is not.
As an example, If I drop something from top of building, it's always go down to the ground; this pattern is always reproducible with the same result by all peoples who can test it. But, if I drink hot water when I'm sick and I get healthy in the next morning, that would become biased, because it's not always reproducible with the same result.
I think, it's only a matter of how someone defined the value for "well-verified" and "limit" until it become true for himself.