Long have we pondered Eliezer’s enigmatic homily, “Rationalists should win.” and like the aristoteleans of old we agreed that it must be so, since a proclivity to win is inherent in the definition of the word “rationalist”.
If you’ve been reading this site, you’ve seen repeated objections, including my own, to this definition.
There is no such thing as instrumental rationality.
There is no such thing as non-instrumental rationality; for it would not be rational. It would be an arbitrarily-chosen value.
It’s instrumental to the goal of understanding the universe. Moreover, if I didn’t believe that galaxies exist I doubt I would be getting paid to study them.
No, a belief that galaxies exist is rational given certain evidence.
Your claim about its instrumental value is simply wrong. Any knowledge is useful if it has consequences for something we wish to do, and the only way to know whether a given piece of knowledge has such consequences is to know it well.
If you’ve been reading this site, you’ve seen repeated objections, including my own, to this definition.
There is no such thing as non-instrumental rationality; for it would not be rational. It would be an arbitrarily-chosen value.
A belief that galaxies exist is a rational belief, but has no instrumental value. It is simply true.
It’s instrumental to the goal of understanding the universe. Moreover, if I didn’t believe that galaxies exist I doubt I would be getting paid to study them.
No, a belief that galaxies exist is rational given certain evidence.
Your claim about its instrumental value is simply wrong. Any knowledge is useful if it has consequences for something we wish to do, and the only way to know whether a given piece of knowledge has such consequences is to know it well.