I don’t know what you mean by “fact of the matter”. It’s not a problem that meta-level isn’t object level, any more than it’s a problem that cats aren’t dogs. I also don’t think that there is any problem in identifying the meta level.
Philosophers “don’t deal with words” in the sense that linguists. They use words to do things, as do many other specialities. You seem to be making the complaint that success isn’t well defined in philosophy, but that would require treating object level science as much more algorithmic than it actually is. What makes a scientific theory
a good theory? Most scientists agree on it?
I don’t know what you mean by “fact of the matter”.
An actual truth about the world.
I don’t know what you mean by that. Is Gresham’s law such a truth?
What makes a scientific theory a good theory?
Have you read A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation?
My question was rhetorical. Science does not deal entirely in directly observable empirical facts—which might be what you meant by “actual truths about the world”. Those who fly under the Bayesian flag by and large don’t either: most of the material on this site is just as indirect/meta-levle/higher-level as philosophy.
I just don’t see anything that justifies the “Boo!” rhetoric.
Actually, perhaps you should try The Simple Truth, because you seem totally confused.
Yes, a lot of the material on this site is philosophy; I would argue that it is correspondingly more likely to be wrong, precisely because is not subject to the same feedback loops as science. This is why EY keeps asking, “How do I use this to build an AI?”
So...is Gresham;s Law an actual truth about the world?
As far as I can tell, yes (in a limited form), but I’m prepared for an economist to tell me otherwise.
The focus of the question was “about the world”. Gresham’s law, if true, is not a direct empirical fact like the metling point of aluminium, not is it built into the fabric of the universe, since it is indefinable without humans and their economic activity.
perhaps you should try The Simple Truth
Now I’m confused. Is that likely to be wrong or not?
If we consider it as a definition, then it is either useful or not useful.
So this is about the “true” part, not about the “actual world” part? In that case, You are’;t complaining that philosophy ins;t connected to reality, your claiming that it is all false. In that case I will have to ask you when and how you became omniscient.
The focus of the question was “about the world”. Gresham’s law, if true, is not a direct empirical fact like the melting point of aluminium, not is it built into the fabric of the universe, since it is indefinable without humans and their economic activity.
Humans are part of the world.
So this is about the “true” part, not about the “actual world” part? In that case, You aren’t complaining that philosophy isn’t connected to reality, your claiming that it is all false. In that case I will have to ask you when and how you became omniscient.
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Yes, if you are confused about what truth means, a definition would be useful; I think The Simple Truth is a pretty useful one (if rather long-winded, as is typical for Yudkowsky). It doesn’t tell you much about the actual world (except that it hints at a reasonable justification for induction, which is developed more fully elsewhere).
But I’m not sure why you think I am claiming philosophy is all false.
The focus of the question was “about the world”. Gresham’s law, if true, is not a direct empirical fact like the melting point of aluminium, not is it built into the fabric of the universe, since it is indefinable without humans and their economic activity.
Humans are part of the world.
Then there is no reason why some philosopihical claims about human nature could not count as Actual Truths About The World, refuting your original point.
That depends on what you mean by “human nature,” but yes, some such claims could. However, they aren’t judged based on this (outside of experimental philosophy, of course). So, there is no feedback loop.
OK, it has been established that you attach True to the sentence:
“Philosophers are not judged based on whether their claims accurately describe the world”.
The question is what that means. We have established that philosophical claims
can be about the world, and it seems uncontroversial that some of the make true claims some of the time, since they all disagree with each other and therefore can’t all be wrong.
The problem is presumably the epistemology, the justification. Perhaps you mean that philosophy doesn’t use enough empiricism. Although it does use empiricism sometimes, and it is not that every scientific question can
be settled empirically.
Just a friendly advice. Having looked through your comment history I have noticed that you have trouble interpreting the statements of others charitably. This is fine for debate-style arguments, but is not a great idea on this forum, where winning is defined by collectively constructing a more accurate map, not as an advantage in a zero-sum game. (Admittedly, this is the ideal case, the practice is unfortunately different.) Anyway, consider reading the comments you are replying to in the best possible way first.
If you honestly do not understand the point the comment you are replying to is making, a better choice is asking the commenter to clarify, rather than continuing to argue based on this lack of understanding. TheOtherDave does it almost to a fault, feel free to read some of his threads. Asking me does not help, I did not write the comment you didn’t understand.
I don’t know what you mean by “fact of the matter”. It’s not a problem that meta-level isn’t object level, any more than it’s a problem that cats aren’t dogs. I also don’t think that there is any problem in identifying the meta level. Philosophers “don’t deal with words” in the sense that linguists. They use words to do things, as do many other specialities. You seem to be making the complaint that success isn’t well defined in philosophy, but that would require treating object level science as much more algorithmic than it actually is. What makes a scientific theory a good theory? Most scientists agree on it?
An actual truth about the world.
Have you read A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation?
I don’t know what you mean by that. Is Gresham’s law such a truth?
My question was rhetorical. Science does not deal entirely in directly observable empirical facts—which might be what you meant by “actual truths about the world”. Those who fly under the Bayesian flag by and large don’t either: most of the material on this site is just as indirect/meta-levle/higher-level as philosophy. I just don’t see anything that justifies the “Boo!” rhetoric.
Actually, perhaps you should try The Simple Truth, because you seem totally confused.
Yes, a lot of the material on this site is philosophy; I would argue that it is correspondingly more likely to be wrong, precisely because is not subject to the same feedback loops as science. This is why EY keeps asking, “How do I use this to build an AI?”
So...is Gresham;s Law an actual truth about the world?
Now I’m confused. Is that likely to be wrong or not?
As far as I can tell, yes (in a limited form), but I’m prepared for an economist to tell me otherwise.
If we consider it as a definition, then it is either useful or not useful.
The focus of the question was “about the world”. Gresham’s law, if true, is not a direct empirical fact like the metling point of aluminium, not is it built into the fabric of the universe, since it is indefinable without humans and their economic activity.
So this is about the “true” part, not about the “actual world” part? In that case, You are’;t complaining that philosophy ins;t connected to reality, your claiming that it is all false. In that case I will have to ask you when and how you became omniscient.
Humans are part of the world.
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Yes, if you are confused about what truth means, a definition would be useful; I think The Simple Truth is a pretty useful one (if rather long-winded, as is typical for Yudkowsky). It doesn’t tell you much about the actual world (except that it hints at a reasonable justification for induction, which is developed more fully elsewhere).
But I’m not sure why you think I am claiming philosophy is all false.
Then there is no reason why some philosopihical claims about human nature could not count as Actual Truths About The World, refuting your original point.
That depends on what you mean by “human nature,” but yes, some such claims could. However, they aren’t judged based on this (outside of experimental philosophy, of course). So, there is no feedback loop.
Based on what? Is Gresham’s law based on “this”?
That comment could have been more clear. My apologies.
Philosophers are not judged based on whether their claims accurately describe the world. This was my original point, which I continue to stand by.
OK, it has been established that you attach True to the sentence:
“Philosophers are not judged based on whether their claims accurately describe the world”.
The question is what that means. We have established that philosophical claims can be about the world, and it seems uncontroversial that some of the make true claims some of the time, since they all disagree with each other and therefore can’t all be wrong.
The problem is presumably the epistemology, the justification. Perhaps you mean that philosophy doesn’t use enough empiricism. Although it does use empiricism sometimes, and it is not that every scientific question can be settled empirically.
I’m going to leave this thread here, because I think I’ve made my position clear, and I don’t think we’ll get further if I re-explain it.
Doesn’t follow.
You mean there are ideas no philosopher has contemplated?
Just a friendly advice. Having looked through your comment history I have noticed that you have trouble interpreting the statements of others charitably. This is fine for debate-style arguments, but is not a great idea on this forum, where winning is defined by collectively constructing a more accurate map, not as an advantage in a zero-sum game. (Admittedly, this is the ideal case, the practice is unfortunately different.) Anyway, consider reading the comments you are replying to in the best possible way first.
Speaking of which, I I honestly had no idea what the “this” meant. Do you?
If you honestly do not understand the point the comment you are replying to is making, a better choice is asking the commenter to clarify, rather than continuing to argue based on this lack of understanding. TheOtherDave does it almost to a fault, feel free to read some of his threads. Asking me does not help, I did not write the comment you didn’t understand.
I believe I did:-
′ Based on what? Is Gresham’s law based on “this”?′
The point is that if no one can understand the comment, then I am not uncharitably pretending not to understand the comment: