Understanding the world based on useful beliefs that are not entirely truthful is a confusion. Acting on truthful beliefs that are not entirely useful is a confusion.
-
-
I agree with the argument's premise that a false negative is much more costly than a false positive in this case. What I don't agree with is the possibility that one can change their belief in response to that calculation
-
Yes, but the thing you agree with is wrong and a common reason for that affects the thing you don’t agree with.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Since the Pascal wager is about maximizing happiness, one could argue that there is a positive reward in not quantifying lack of confidence
. -
No, Pascal’s wager is about not going to hell.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The problem is rather people holding assumptions very strongly despite weak evidence. Humans seem to have strong priors for believing in gods and this can only be overcome by bootstrapping counter evidence from scientific axioms. Social alignment circuitry vs epistemic circuitry.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.