You are steelmanning the rationalist position; many rationalists do say, either explicitly or implicitly, that there is one true map, which they more or less identify with the territory, and that they have it.
That could very well be. I had an impression that meta-rationalists are arguing against a strawman, but that would just mean we disagree about the definition of “rationalist position”.
I agree that one-true-map rationalism is rather naive and that there are many people who hold this position, but I haven’t seen much of this on LW. Actually, LW contains the clearest description of the map/territory relationship that I’ve seen, no nebulosity or any of that stuff.
You are steelmanning the rationalist position; many rationalists do say, either explicitly or implicitly, that there is one true map, which they more or less identify with the territory, and that they have it.
That could very well be. I had an impression that meta-rationalists are arguing against a strawman, but that would just mean we disagree about the definition of “rationalist position”.
I agree that one-true-map rationalism is rather naive and that there are many people who hold this position, but I haven’t seen much of this on LW. Actually, LW contains the clearest description of the map/territory relationship that I’ve seen, no nebulosity or any of that stuff.
For me, the philosophical implications of: “there is no one true map” was the first quantum leap. How is this statement not a big deal?