I’d go further than “fact vs opinion” and claim that the whole concept of there being one truth out there somewhere is quite harmful, given that the best we can do is have models that heavily rely on personal priors and ways to collect data and adjust said models.
I don’t understand why shminux’s comment was down to −6 (as of 11⁄17). I think this comment is good for thinking clearly. How reality is perceived to you is based off how you collect data, update, and interpret events. You can get really different results by changing any of those( biased data collection, only updating on positive results, redefining labels in a motte and bailey, etc.)
Going from a “one truth” to a “multiple frames” model helps communicating with others. I find it easier to tell someone
from a semantics viewpoint, ‘purpose’ is a word created by people to describe goals in normal circumstances. From this standpoint, to ask “What’s my purpose in life?” doesn’t make sense since a goal doesn’t make sense applied to a whole life [Note: if you believe in a purposeful god, then yes you can ask that question]
than stating more objectively (ie without the “from a semantics viewpoint”).
This is also good for clarifying metrics because different frames are better at different metrics, which should be pointed out (for clear communication’s sake).
Instead of denying whole viewpoints, this allows zeroing in on what exactly is being valued and why. For example, Bob is wishing people loving-kindness and imagining them actually being happy as a result of his thoughts. I can say this is bad on a predictive metric, but good on a “Bob’s subjective well-being” metric.
The concept of “one truth” can be an infohazard, if people decide that they already know the truth, so there is no reason to learn anymore, and all that is left to do is to convert or destroy those who disagree.
To me this seems like an example of the valley of bad rationality. If possible, the solution is more rationality. If not possible, then random things will happen, not all of them good.
I’d go further than “fact vs opinion” and claim that the whole concept of there being one truth out there somewhere is quite harmful, given that the best we can do is have models that heavily rely on personal priors and ways to collect data and adjust said models.
I don’t understand why shminux’s comment was down to −6 (as of 11⁄17). I think this comment is good for thinking clearly. How reality is perceived to you is based off how you collect data, update, and interpret events. You can get really different results by changing any of those( biased data collection, only updating on positive results, redefining labels in a motte and bailey, etc.)
Going from a “one truth” to a “multiple frames” model helps communicating with others. I find it easier to tell someone
than stating more objectively (ie without the “from a semantics viewpoint”).
This is also good for clarifying metrics because different frames are better at different metrics, which should be pointed out (for clear communication’s sake).
Instead of denying whole viewpoints, this allows zeroing in on what exactly is being valued and why. For example, Bob is wishing people loving-kindness and imagining them actually being happy as a result of his thoughts. I can say this is bad on a predictive metric, but good on a “Bob’s subjective well-being” metric.
The concept of “one truth” can be an infohazard, if people decide that they already know the truth, so there is no reason to learn anymore, and all that is left to do is to convert or destroy those who disagree.
To me this seems like an example of the valley of bad rationality. If possible, the solution is more rationality. If not possible, then random things will happen, not all of them good.
There can be a good-enough distinction between fact and opinion, even if there are deep problems with naive objectivism.