Revised Lesswrong post, hopefully clearer than the FB post:https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CPP2uLcaywEokFKQG/toolbox-thinking-and-law-thinking …
-
-
-
Thank you! Will read when I get a chance.
- 18 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
the bit about "one weird trick that guarantees an optimal result" is totally ass-backward
-
Bayesian decision theory?
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Isn’t it a methodology of reasoning rather than a “claim”? Namely, a methodology fully expected to produce the same cognitive outcomes given the same inputs regardless of who’s doing the thinking?
-
Hmm, interesting that you say this, because
@admittedlyhuman seemed to have exactly the opposite reaction (namely, that rationality is only about the criterion and definitely not at all about the method). It seems that clarification of the diversity of understandings is needed! - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Seems too broad. The claim “formal logic is internally valid” would seem to qualify as a claim that there’s a criteria by which thinking could be judged correct. I’m not sure what work “ultimately” is doing in the sentence. All criteria are relative to something.
-
Right, my definition is especially meant to include formal logic! Does that clarify the intention? Or does what I wrote still seem wrong?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t know - by this definition Kierkegaardian religious absurdism would be a rationalism, no? A Leap Of Faith being an optimal solution of a generalized Pascal’s Game.
-
Yes… there is a “demarcation problem” (parallel to the “science demarcation problem”) that is ultimately unresolvable. There’s borderline cases, and no hard criterion. Kierkegaard is an interesting one—thank you!
- 3 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.