This seems to be true, but it changes the nature of truth: truth is just an effective hack in which you start to believe.
Side note: I once had an acid and after it I become hyper-suggestable. A person near me said that he has an allergy to strawberries, and I started to have panic attacks when I ate strawberries, despite the fact that I know that I don’t have this allergy.
What makes a model good, or to allude to a much-quoted aphorism of Cox that I find rather irritating, useful? What do you want to do with a model, that you can rate a model on its fitness for that purpose?
A useful model “pays rent”, in Eliezer’s words. Its predictions match future observations. It does not need to be related to any deep underlying truth, assuming one existed. It is also contextual, not absolute. It varies between people and cultures. Epicycles worked for astronomy and astrology for some centuries. Belief in God among religious people gets you to socialize and be accepted by the community, with all the associated perks, and so is useful, and therefore “good”, if thriving in your community is what you value. If, on the other hand, self-consistency is what you are after, faith would not pay rent and you need to find a “better” way to make sense of the world.
Epicycles worked for astronomy and astrology for some centuries.
Nothing works for astrology.
Belief in God among religious people gets you to socialize and be accepted by the community, with all the associated perks, and so is useful, and therefore “good”, if thriving in your community is what you value.
In practice, you are expected to actually believe, not merely pretend to believe—that is, lie your way through every religious ritual.
self-consistency is what you are after, faith would not pay rent and you need to find a “better” way to make sense of the world.
Not a “better” way, but a better way. Reality has no inverted commas.
As it happens, my bicycle has developed a couple of mechanical problems. I already have a rough idea of what needs to be done, but the first thing I need to do when I have the time is examine it to discover exactly what needs to be done—to discover what is true about the faults, and so be able to replace exactly the parts that need to be replaced, clean the parts that need cleaned, lubricate what needs lubricating, and adjust what needs adjusting. This talk about usefulness is an evasion of reality. What is useful to me regarding my bicycle is the truth about it, nothing less.
Whatever you find useful, if you are serious about it, you will find that you need to know the truth about it, to know what will achieve your purposes and what will not.
Seems we are talking past each other. You cannot imagine that a way of thinking where “reality” and the map/territory distinction is not primal, and I am tired of explaining why in my view this way of thinking is nice to start, but eventually harmful, I’ve been doing it on this blog for over 5 years. Take care.
It seems to me that we are talking directly to each other’s statements.
and I am tired of explaining why in my view this way of thinking is nice to start, but eventually harmful, I’ve been doing it on this blog for over 5 years.
And I’ve been contesting it even longer, although less frequently.
Take care.
You too. I am happy to leave a conversation as soon as it appears that everything has been said, whether or not anyone has been convinced of anything. But I would still like to know how you would set about diagnosing and repairing a faulty bicycle. It is in simple, everyday matters like these that one can best see what pays rent and what does not.
Right, certainly there are models that go viral without being accurate/predictive in scientific terms. They are nonetheless useful, at least in the context they proliferate. They often attain the status of “truth” and “fact”, and in that way they are indeed “good models”
This seems to be true, but it changes the nature of truth: truth is just an effective hack in which you start to believe.
Side note: I once had an acid and after it I become hyper-suggestable. A person near me said that he has an allergy to strawberries, and I started to have panic attacks when I ate strawberries, despite the fact that I know that I don’t have this allergy.
Exactly. That’s one reason I dislike using the terms “true” and “fact” and instead prefer something like “a good model of..”
What makes a model good, or to allude to a much-quoted aphorism of Cox that I find rather irritating, useful? What do you want to do with a model, that you can rate a model on its fitness for that purpose?
A useful model “pays rent”, in Eliezer’s words. Its predictions match future observations. It does not need to be related to any deep underlying truth, assuming one existed. It is also contextual, not absolute. It varies between people and cultures. Epicycles worked for astronomy and astrology for some centuries. Belief in God among religious people gets you to socialize and be accepted by the community, with all the associated perks, and so is useful, and therefore “good”, if thriving in your community is what you value. If, on the other hand, self-consistency is what you are after, faith would not pay rent and you need to find a “better” way to make sense of the world.
Nothing works for astrology.
In practice, you are expected to actually believe, not merely pretend to believe—that is, lie your way through every religious ritual.
Not a “better” way, but a better way. Reality has no inverted commas.
As it happens, my bicycle has developed a couple of mechanical problems. I already have a rough idea of what needs to be done, but the first thing I need to do when I have the time is examine it to discover exactly what needs to be done—to discover what is true about the faults, and so be able to replace exactly the parts that need to be replaced, clean the parts that need cleaned, lubricate what needs lubricating, and adjust what needs adjusting. This talk about usefulness is an evasion of reality. What is useful to me regarding my bicycle is the truth about it, nothing less.
Whatever you find useful, if you are serious about it, you will find that you need to know the truth about it, to know what will achieve your purposes and what will not.
Seems we are talking past each other. You cannot imagine that a way of thinking where “reality” and the map/territory distinction is not primal, and I am tired of explaining why in my view this way of thinking is nice to start, but eventually harmful, I’ve been doing it on this blog for over 5 years. Take care.
It seems to me that we are talking directly to each other’s statements.
And I’ve been contesting it even longer, although less frequently.
You too. I am happy to leave a conversation as soon as it appears that everything has been said, whether or not anyone has been convinced of anything. But I would still like to know how you would set about diagnosing and repairing a faulty bicycle. It is in simple, everyday matters like these that one can best see what pays rent and what does not.
The problem is that “good model” is “viral” model, not predictive model. Being predictive helps model to be more viral, but it is not necessary.
Right, certainly there are models that go viral without being accurate/predictive in scientific terms. They are nonetheless useful, at least in the context they proliferate. They often attain the status of “truth” and “fact”, and in that way they are indeed “good models”