The element that I’d call clearly meta-rational is understanding that rationality is not one well-defined thing but a bag of tricks that are more-or-less applicable in different situations. It’s meta-rational in that it’s about how rationality works and is used in practice.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @catherineols and
Meta-rationalism is based on an understanding that reality is unfixably “nebulous”—there is no correct description of it. I think I may hear that in what you said, also?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, that's certainly central to my own personal worldview, but I can't quite connect it to CFAR rationality. Perhaps the platonic form of CFAR rationality holds that there definitely is "more correct" but maybe there isn't a "most correct". idk,
@juliagalef, thoughts?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
tbh, I mostly try to stay away from debates over whether there is one objectively correct "Truth," or "Reality," bc I find them too confusing, & they don't end up seeming relevant to real decision-making anyway
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
That’s my take also. In any case, we don’t now have The Correct Description, and there’s no likelihood of getting it soon, so we have to figure out how to act rationally without one.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @juliagalef and
… and this is “meta-rational” because, to apply any formally rational method, you need *some* description, which means you need to choose one; and that choice is about *how* best to apply rationality.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Hm, so maybe "CFAR rationality" can really be thought of as a meta-rationality that holds "Yes, there is a normative criterion according to which one ought judge which is 'best' when considering how best to apply different formally and informally rational methods. It's 'max EV'."
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, to the extent that it holds that there *is* a single normative criterion, I would categorize it as rationalist (and mistaken imo).
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
On this particular point, I think we're still not on the same page RE your intent with the definition in your paragraph. CFAR rationality has a single normative *meta*-rationalist criterion which adjudicates which methods (formal & informal) are good to use when.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hmm. Often when I explain meta-rationalism, rationalists say “well, there must exist a guaranteed-optimal way of selecting which rational method to use.” That’s rationalism, under my definition, and not meta-rationalism. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
“Meta-rationalism” isn’t an ideal term, for exactly this reason…. I’m bundling recognition of nebulosity into the definition. It’s a pretty complex idea that takes more than a paragraph to get across. 2/2
-
-
Got it, this is interesting to me, that it feels again like the difference actually comes down to the "one trick" in the methods, rather than the "one criterion". Believing there *exists* a best tool is one thing, versus that you *can find* one if you just Follow These Rules.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The belief that “there MUST exist a best tool, even though we have no idea what it is” seems like an emotionally-appealing religious certainty to me, rather than an empirically-grounded pragmatic attitude.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 36 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.