(“A priori” suggests lack of knowledge to temper an initial impression, which doesn’t apply here.)
There are problems one can’t by default solve, and a statement, standing on its own, that it’s feasible to solve them is known to be wrong. A “useful attitude” of believing something wrong is a popular stance, but is it good? How does its usefulness work, specifically, if it does, and can we get the benefits without the ugliness?
that hasn’t been proven/isnt known to be unsolvable)
An optimistic attitude towards problems that are potentially solvable is instrumentally useful—and dare I argue—instrumentally rational. The drawbacks of encouraging an optimistic attitude towards open problems are far outweighed by the potential benefits.
(The quote markup in your comment designates a quote from your earlier comment, not my comment.)
You are not engaging the distinction I’ve drawn. Saying “It’s useful” isn’t the final analysis, there are potential improvements that avoid the horror of intentionally holding and professing false beliefs (to the point of disapproving of other people pointing out their falsehood; this happened in your reply to Ilya).
The problem of improving over the stance of an “optimistic attitude” might be solvable.
(The quote markup in your comment designates a quote from your earlier comment, not my comment.)
I know: I was quoting myself.
Saying “It’s useful” isn’t the final analysis
I guess for me it is.
there are potential improvements that avoid the horror of intentionally holding and professing false beliefs (to the point of disapproving of other people pointing out their falsehood; this happened in your reply to Ilya)
The beliefs aren’t known to be false. It is not clear to me, that someone believing they can solve a problem (that isn’t known/proven or even strongly suspected to be unsolvable) is a false belief.
What do you propose to replace the optimism I suggest?
(“A priori” suggests lack of knowledge to temper an initial impression, which doesn’t apply here.)
There are problems one can’t by default solve, and a statement, standing on its own, that it’s feasible to solve them is known to be wrong. A “useful attitude” of believing something wrong is a popular stance, but is it good? How does its usefulness work, specifically, if it does, and can we get the benefits without the ugliness?
An optimistic attitude towards problems that are potentially solvable is instrumentally useful—and dare I argue—instrumentally rational. The drawbacks of encouraging an optimistic attitude towards open problems are far outweighed by the potential benefits.
(The quote markup in your comment designates a quote from your earlier comment, not my comment.)
You are not engaging the distinction I’ve drawn. Saying “It’s useful” isn’t the final analysis, there are potential improvements that avoid the horror of intentionally holding and professing false beliefs (to the point of disapproving of other people pointing out their falsehood; this happened in your reply to Ilya).
The problem of improving over the stance of an “optimistic attitude” might be solvable.
I know: I was quoting myself.
I guess for me it is.
The beliefs aren’t known to be false. It is not clear to me, that someone believing they can solve a problem (that isn’t known/proven or even strongly suspected to be unsolvable) is a false belief.
What do you propose to replace the optimism I suggest?