Your statements have the implied premise that having true beliefs raises the sanity line even if the process of reaching those beliefs is not correlated with the correctness of the beliefs.
I prefer “raising the sanity line” to refer to increased usage of processes correlated with creating correct beliefs. Your hostile reaction to this understanding doesn’t exactly advance the ball on figuring out how to actually achieve either goal.
Your statements have the implied premise that having true beliefs raises the sanity line even if the process of reaching those beliefs is not correlated with the correctness of the beliefs.
I didn’t use that premise. But I suppose it could be true anyway.
“People not in my tribe are sexy and cool. I want to be like and/or mate with those people. I believe I have a sufficient chance of successfully joining and gaining status within the tribe with sexy and cool people in it. I will now change my signalling beliefs.”
Given the context, I understood you to be saying that way to persuade theists was to demonstrate that atheists have higher social status. Regardless of the sociological truth of that assertion, we both know that “high-status” is not correlated with “correct beliefs.”
Given the context, I understood you to be saying that way to persuade theists was to demonstrate that atheists have higher social status.
I said something kind of similar to that so I’ll accept it for the sake of the argument without implying any endorsement of the claim.
Regardless of the sociological truth of that assertion, we both know that “high-status” is not correlated with “correct beliefs.”
I actually doubt this is true, that is there probably is such a correlation—the world is unfair like that. But putting that aside even if I assume the claims you make in the parent are true it still doesn’t mean I had any particular premise (or conclusion) about the sanity line.
Did I misunderstand you?
I think you resolved the ambiguous ‘this’ in palladias’s comment in a different direction.
Your statements have the implied premise that having true beliefs raises the sanity line even if the process of reaching those beliefs is not correlated with the correctness of the beliefs.
I prefer “raising the sanity line” to refer to increased usage of processes correlated with creating correct beliefs. Your hostile reaction to this understanding doesn’t exactly advance the ball on figuring out how to actually achieve either goal.
I didn’t use that premise. But I suppose it could be true anyway.
Given the context, I understood you to be saying that way to persuade theists was to demonstrate that atheists have higher social status. Regardless of the sociological truth of that assertion, we both know that “high-status” is not correlated with “correct beliefs.”
Did I misunderstand you?
I said something kind of similar to that so I’ll accept it for the sake of the argument without implying any endorsement of the claim.
I actually doubt this is true, that is there probably is such a correlation—the world is unfair like that. But putting that aside even if I assume the claims you make in the parent are true it still doesn’t mean I had any particular premise (or conclusion) about the sanity line.
I think you resolved the ambiguous ‘this’ in palladias’s comment in a different direction.
Yeah, but probably it’s a very weak one.