JamesCole

• JamesColeFeb 8, 2014, 2:49 PM

  0 points

  on: Ex­pres­sion of In­ter­est: Bris­bane LessWrong Meetup

  Hi, I’m in Brisbane and potentially interested. Not a lot of free time at the moment though (finishing off PhD). I’ve been to Skeptics in the Pub, but haven’t had time to go recently. I think I’m a member of UQ Skeptics on Facebook.

There’s learned philoso­phers but not philo­soph­i­cal experts

• JamesColeSep 27, 2011, 8:02 AM

  1 point

  on: Scien­tist vs. philoso­pher on con­cep­tual analysis

  I think there is a problem in the culture of philosophy.

  It’s seen as generally better to define things up front, as this is seen as being more precise.

  That sounds reasonable. Who doesn’t want greater precision?

  Precision is good when it is possible. But often we don’t have a good enough understanding of the phenomena to be precise, and the “precision” that is given is a faux-precision.

  Often logic is used to define precise categories, by philosophers examining their concept for X. Then they look at and discuss and argue over the consequences of these definitions.

  I think it’d be more appropriate for them to spend more time trying to examine the nature of the instances of X out there (as opposed to the properties of their concept of X), based on a loose notion of ‘X’ (because at this point they don’t really know what X is).

  (caveat: I didn’t read the pages linked to in this post’s description)

• JamesColeSep 16, 2011, 4:55 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Which Fields Are Un­der­served?

  they might, though you have to be very careful in treating partial data as representative of the whole picture.

• JamesColeSep 15, 2011, 3:38 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Which Fields Are Un­der­served?

  but the data for the kind of factors she’s talking about (i’ve read the book, though it was a while ago) goes beyond what property records could provide.

• JamesColeSep 15, 2011, 2:24 PM

  0 points

  on: Which Fields Are Un­der­served?

  The data necessary for such systematic examination is not available in some fields. I’m not sure about this field, but maybe it was one of them (back then at least)?

• JamesColeJun 7, 2011, 8:06 AM

  0 points

  on: Effi­cient Char­ity: Do Unto Others...

  Nice post. You could write a similar one on helping the environment. How often do you hear people say, about helping the environment, that “every little bit helps”?

• JamesColeApr 14, 2011, 2:21 PM

  2 points

  on: NEW TIME: Syd­ney Less Wrong meetup, 23/​4, 3PM

  While we’re on the topic of an Australian meetup, are there any other LW ppl in Brisbane? If there’s some we could organise a meetup.

• JamesColeJan 19, 2011, 1:21 PM

  0 points

  on: Note on Ter­minol­ogy: “Ra­tion­al­ity”, not “Ra­tion­al­ism”

  So, my suggestion is to use “rationality” consistently and to avoid using “rationalism”. Via similarity to “scientist” and “physicist”, “rationalist” doesn’t seem to have the same problem. Discus

  A while back I argued against using the term “rationalist”.

• JamesColeNov 4, 2010, 4:00 AM

  5 points

  on: Some­thing’s Wrong

  Some further thoughts:

  Noticing that something isn’t right is very different from developing a solution.

  The former may draw on experience and intuition—like having developed a finely honed bullshit detector. You can often just immediately see that there’s something wrong.

  I’ve noticed that when people complain that someone has given a criticism but hasn’t or can’t suggest something better, they seem expect that person to be able to do so on the spot, off the top of their head.

  But the task of developing a solution is not usually something you can do off the top of you head. It’s a creative act, and that usually means you have to sketch out bits and pieces, critically evaluate them, modify them, and repeat until you have developed something satisfactory.

• JamesColeSep 30, 2010, 8:44 AM

  4 points

  on: Some­thing’s Wrong

  Yes. Too often people treat it as a sin to criticize without suggesting an alternative. (as if a movie critic could only criticize an element of a film if they were to write a better film).

  But coming up with alternatives can be hard, and having clear criticisms of current approaches can be an important step towards a better solution. It might take years of building up various criticisms—and really coming to understand the problem—before you are ready to build an alternative.

• JamesColeSep 27, 2010, 2:06 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: michaelhoney’s comment on: Where are we?

  Brisbane, Australia

• JamesColeJun 11, 2010, 7:07 AM

  0 points

  on: Your in­tu­itions are not magic

  Yet our brains assume that we hear about all those disasters [we read about in the newspaper] because we’ve personally witnessed them, and that the distribution of disasters in the newspapers therefore reflects the distribution of disasters in the real world.

  Even if we had personally witnessed them, that wouldn’t, in itself, be any reason to assume that they are representative of things in general. The representativeness of any data is always something that can be critically assessed.

• JamesColeJun 16, 2009, 8:27 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: derekz’s comment on: The two mean­ings of math­e­mat­i­cal terms

  This seems to be a common response—Tyrrell_McAllister said something similar:

  I think that your distinction is really just the distinction between physics and mathematics.

  I take that distinction as meaning that a precise maths statement isn’t necessarily reflecting reality like physics does. That is not really my point.

  For one thing, my point is about any applied maths, regardless of domain. That maths could be used in physics, biology, economics, engineering, computer science, or even the humanities.

  But more importantly, my point concerns what you think the equations are about, and how you can be mistaken about that, even in physics.

  The following might help clarify.

  A successful test of a mathematical theory against reality means that it accurately describes some aspect of reality. But a successful test doesn’t necessarily mean it accurately describes what you think it does.

  People successfully tested the epicycles theory’s predictions about the movement of the planets and the stars. They tended to think that this showed that the planets and stars were carried around on the specified configuration of rotating circles, but all it actually showed was that the points of light in the sky followed the paths the theory predicted.

  They were committing a mind projection ‘fallacy’ - their eyes were looking at points of light but they were ‘seeing’ planets and stars embedded in spheres.

  The way people interpreted those successful predictions made it very hard to criticise the epicycles theory.

• JamesColeJun 16, 2009, 6:17 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: komponisto’s comment on: The two mean­ings of math­e­mat­i­cal terms

  I fully agree, and this is completely in line with the points I was trying to make.

• JamesColeJun 16, 2009, 6:01 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: The two mean­ings of math­e­mat­i­cal terms

  It is theoretically possible to accurately describe the motions of celestial bodies using epicycles, though one might need infinite epicycles, and epicycles would themselves need to be on epicycles. If you think there’s something wrong with the math, it won’t be in its inability to describe the motion of celestial bodies.

  But I don’t think there’s anything “wrong with the math”—I even said precisely that:

  A believer in epicycles would likely have thought that it must have been correct because it gave mathematically correct answers. And it actually did . Epicycles actually did precisely calculate the positions of the stars and planets (not absolutely perfectly, but in principle the theory could have been adjusted to give perfectly precise results). If the mathematics was right, how could it be wrong?

  .

  While ‘accurate’ and ‘precise’ are used as synonyms in ordinary language, please never use them that way when talking technically about the meanings of words.

  I was trying to talk about how people actually use them, and one of the things I was suggesting is that people do actually tend to treat them as synonymous.

  Similarly, please never use ‘begs the question’ or any form of it when not referring to the logical fallacy.

  Isn’t this a little picky? The way I used ‘begs the question’, in the sense of ‘raises the question’, is fairly common usage. Language is constantly evolving and if you wanted to claim that people only should use terms and phrases in line with their original meanings you’d have throw away most language.

• JamesColeJun 16, 2009, 5:32 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: billswift’s comment on: The two mean­ings of math­e­mat­i­cal terms

  As far as I can see, that’s just an acknowledgement that we can’t know anything for certain—so we can’t be certain of any ‘laws’, and any claim of certainty is invalid.

  I was arguing that any applied maths term has two types of meanings—one ‘internal to’ the equations and an ‘external’ ontological one, concerning what it represents—and that a precise ‘internal’ meaning does not imply a precise ‘external’ meaning, even though ‘precision’ is often only thought of in terms of the first type of meaning.

  I don’t see how that relates in any way to the question of absolute certainty. Is there some relationship I’m missing here?

• JamesColeJun 15, 2009, 3:08 PM

  −1 points

  in reply to: Annoyance’s comment on: The Ter­rible, Hor­rible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Mo­ral­ity and What To Do About It

  I’m not trying to be a jerk. Let me try to explain things, as I don’t think I communicated my point very clearly.

  Just to start off, the quoted text is something you said.

  But perhaps you are saying that the sentence I’ve embedded it in does not reflect what any thing you said? If so, it’s not mean to—it’s describing the point I was making, and to which your response included that quoted text.

  Essentially, my last comment was trying to point out what I’d originally said had been misinterpreted in the Just-So Story bit, even though I didn’t do a great job of making this clear. Of course you may argue that you didn’t misinterpret me, but I certainly wasn’t trying to put words into anyones mouth.

• JamesColeJun 15, 2009, 2:55 PM

  −2 points

  in reply to: Annoyance’s comment on: The Ter­rible, Hor­rible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Mo­ral­ity and What To Do About It

  An intuition is correct if it matches reality.

  Indeed, and that is why it’s wrong to say that attempts to rationally justify statements about reality are “almost certainly going to produce an ad hoc Just-So Story”.

  science is basically a means to determine whether initial intuitions are true.

  No, science is a methodology to determine whether an assertion about reality should be discarded. If it merely dealt with initial intuitions, it’s usefulness would be exhausted once the supply of initial intuitions had been run through.

  I’m not sure what the second sentence there is taking “initial intuitions” to mean, but I don’t think there’s any substantial disagreement between our statements.

The two mean­ings of math­e­mat­i­cal terms