the sequences don't say "all you need is Bayes", they say "there is no known procedure you can follow that makes your reasoning defensible"
-
-
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
This seems consistent with my saying “Some rationalisms specify the trick; others insist there must be one, but that it is not currently knowable.”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
he warns specifically against putting your trust in clever tricks! you're arguing with a caricature man
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
I could tell you "read the sequences" but here's where I was quoting fromhttps://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wustx45CPL5rZenuo/no-safe-defense-not-even-science …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman @Meaningness
I don't remember what to google to get the bit about the guy who focuses on how to cut rather than cutting and so is a bad swordsman
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman @Meaningness
but that made a huge impression on me and is basically the direct opposite of what you're saying here
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
So, do you object to my first paragraph as well, or just to the last one?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
so long as you're clear that the "criterion" you're referring to is the *actual facts of the matter*
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman @Meaningness
the first paragraph is a bizarre framing that makes it seem like you don't really understand, even though it's technically accurate
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It may seem bizarre because it’s meant to cover a great many intellectual movements other than LW. It probably does a better job of characterizing (e.g.) logical positivism. (Which was an explicitly “rationalist” movement.)
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.