If this has been discussed before, then I ask for patience, and a point in the right direction. I have been a lurker on Lesswrong for a while, and have mostly just been reading things, and only commenting occasionally. It wasn't long before I realised that the sequences played a...
It occurred to me that our biases might not matter very much lots of the time. They matter if you want to maximize your chances of finding the truth, but not if you are interested in maximizing the chances the chances of someone finding the truth. Take science as an...
> For example, if you say, "The rational belief is X, but the true belief is Y" then you are probably using the word "rational" in a way that means something other than what most of us have in mind This was copied from here. Surely it is obvious that...
So, is he defending one of these positions, or arguing against them all. Or saying the whole debate is pointless?
From what I read he seems to be suggesting that truth is independent of what we believe, but I'm not sure what else he is saying, or what his argument is.
By the way,
I still haven't heard an explanation of what "The Simple Truth" is about. Maybe that requires a whole separate post.
That helps explain a bit more why they are the way they are. But it suggests to me that they shouldn't play such a prominent role on the site, because they haven't been designed for the purpose they are now being used for.
Thanks, this is a great suggestion, I think this would be more helpful.
If this has been discussed before, then I ask for patience, and a point in the right direction.
I have been a lurker on Lesswrong for a while, and have mostly just been reading things, and only commenting occasionally. It wasn't long before I realised that the sequences played a very important role for understanding lots of what goes on here.
I have been trying to read them, but I've been getting very frustrated. Apart from being insanely long, they are not very easy to understand.
Take the first one I came to "The Simple Truth".
It is a very long story, and it is never really explained what the point is. Is it that truth... (read more)
"The normativity of logic is: “If you want to be speaking the same language as everyone else, don’t say things like ‘The ball is all green and all blue at the same time in the same way.’”"
You surely don't mean this: everyone one else is logical, why not me?
For a start, is everyone else logical? And even if they are, is that the best justification we have for logic?
"But philosophers still argue about ... theism ... as if these weren’t settled questions."
If this is really what you think, then why do you continue with your blog?
You only have no time to think if your main priority is winning the prize. If you are interested in holding true beliefs then you can take longer. However, our current system tends to reward those that get there first, not those who maximize their chances of being correct.
Ok. Clearly you only read the title, and not my actual post. I didn't say no biases matter, just that they might not always be a bad thing.
Of course. Most of it will be in the wrong direction, that's the point. It might not be best for you, but maybe it will be the best thing for the group.
It occurred to me that our biases might not matter very much lots of the time. They matter if you want to maximize your chances of finding the truth, but not if you are interested in maximizing the chances the chances of someone finding the truth.
Take science as an example, scientists aren't always free from biases when it comes to thinking about their own theories. They look for ways to confirm what they believe, not discomfirm it. But does that matter? As long as their rivals are looking for ways to falsify those theories then overall the system should work well.
In fact it might work better:
Imagine that there is a prize (a really big prize) at... (read 195 more words →)
For example, if you say, "The rational belief is X, but the true belief is Y" then you are probably using the word "rational" in a way that means something other than what most of us have in mind
This was copied from here.
Surely it is obvious that there are lots of examples when one might say this. Consider this:
Rob looks in the newspaper to check the football scores. The newspaper says that United won 3-2, but it is a misprint because City actually won 3-2. In this case, the rational belief is that United won, but the true belief is that City won.
Am I missing something?
Thanks, that helps a lot.