Search Ideas

I think you may have misunderstood me. I asked how I can know that our discussion about HTV will be productive if we continue it now. (For context and for others: I’ve found that Liberty and I have roughly the same discussion in various venues every few months or so. I raised this issue in the linked X thread.)

I didn’t ask you to continue the object-level discussion itself.

Please address my concern before continuing the discussion.

I think we agree that the conjecturing and criticising of explanations is where the progress happens, and this choice you're saying people make at the end among conjectured theories is (relatively) mechanical. But I would also point out that trying to measure how HTV a theory is is as futile and scientistic as trying to measure moral worth. Yet it's still possible to have meaningful discussions about morality. I can't measure the moral value of murder but I can meaningfully argue it's worse than theft. So I think the claim that "if you can't program it you don't understand it" doesn't apply so universally as #3020 implies.

No because 1) there’s always a finite amount of deeply nested criticisms, and 2) the discussion graph is acyclic.

should_adopt? and pending_criticisms are implemented in terms of each other. Doesn’t that cause an infinite regress?

Recursive Epistemology

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be pending, it can’t have any pending criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

def should_adopt? idea
  pending_criticisms(idea).none?
end

def pending_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| should_adopt?(c) }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.

Assuming Sam did mean to criticize my opposition to assigning strengths to criticisms:

The issue isn’t that we don’t have a way to fix the hole. (We often do.)
The issue is that we have no rigorous way to tell how big the hole is. So, rather than evade criticisms by saying ‘but it’s only a small hole’, I’m saying we should always either fix holes in the boat, no matter their size, or choose a different boat.

Unclear what the boat stands for.

Sam criticized my idea, so presumably he means for the boat to represent #4711. But the way his criticism is phrased, it sounds more like the boat represents the methodology of assigning strengths to criticisms.

To be clear, the boat represents the idea that we should judge criticisms by their strength?

if somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.

Agreed. My point is that you can't refute a flaw by saying the flaw doesn't have a workable system to resolve it. "Your boat has a hole in it". "Yeah, well I don't have any way of fixing it". That doesn't resolve the criticism of the boat. If it's unfixable and a real flaw, you might just need a new boat.

Logically, yes. But in practice, it won’t be the same.

For example:

Idea A: ‘Newtonian gravity is true.’ → Has pending criticisms (some predictions don’t match observation).
Idea B: ‘Newtonian gravity is not true.’ → Also has pending criticisms: ‘Not helpful’; ‘Doesn’t tell us how gravity works’; etc.

Related: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-the-bayesian-philosophy-of-science/

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if somebody suggests some system they can’t put into practice, then the system is no good.

This sounds like a version of #2195, see criticism #2198.

Then the idea ‘I could either address that pending criticism or, if I fail to do that, look into all the other pending criticisms’ would have no pending criticisms.

Is rejecting an idea equivalent to adopting it's negation?

But what if the idea that you should be suspicious of a large volume of criticism in a short time has pending criticism itself?

An inability to improve on the criticized aspect of a system is not a refutation of that criticism.

This approach does not specify how long you should spend coming up with criticisms before adopting it, therefore it cannot be put into action as stated. The delay must be nonzero otherwise, the fresh idea "you should ignore criticisms" would nullify the system.

Now also available on PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/archive/HACTSO-6.pdf

I’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.

https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought

Rational Decision-Making

Expanding on #2112…

If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.

If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?

Or, simplified:

It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.

If you don’t have any counter-criticisms, how could the criticisms not be decisive?

To arrive at that conclusion, you’d first need some counter-criticism anyway.

Just how ‘tiny’ is a criticism then? By reference to what principle or measure?

To incorporate some notion of decisiveness or severity, we need to be prepared to program that into our decision-making tool. I’m not aware that anyone knows how to programmatically determine the severity or decisiveness of a criticism, and I suspect outsourcing it to the user would result in the same unintended behavior we saw with the sliders for hard to vary.

Ration … has pretty indirect relation with the common sense.

That’s fine. Common sense is often found to be wrong upon closer inspection. It’s rationality that helps us seek truth. Common sense says the sun rotates around the earth; rationality helped us understand why that isn’t the case.