Baron’s distinction between “normative” and “prescriptive” is one I haven’t seen before. That seems useful and maybe key. OTOH, if we’re looking for a disagreement crux, it might be whether a normative theory that can’t be achieved, even in principle, is a good thing.
-
-
Yes: this is an instance of meta-rational reasoning! Note that it’s not based on general-purpose a priori considerations, but the domain-specific observation that circuit size is a major contributor to what ontology is appropriate.
-
Are you under the impression CFAR doesn't teach this? They do. In practice, math teachers also teach the meta-math of deciding how many apples there are to add, aka "counting". They even teach "casting out nines", a higher criterion for deciding if a math calculation was right!
-
If I may jump in and observe, I thiiiink the distinction here is whether "EV maximizing" is just a tool/framework like other tools, which can be appropriate at some times and not at others, or whether it's closer to objective like "shortest path" in the maze example.
-
Yes! This has been a very interesting discussion—thank you all! I’m going to sleep now… I may have more to day tomorrow :)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.