felipec
unbelief
No bio...
User ID: 1796
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Essentially quality posts on non-contentious trivial topics are going to be ignored by the community, the same posts on contentious trivial ones (trivial in the sense the majority of people believe they have an answer, largely culture war issues) will be feted
But that hasn't been my experience. The contentious trivial topics I've tried to talk about gather a lot of feedback, they are not ignored at all: they are lambasted.
The world's best explanation on logical equivalencies and truth tables would be almost entirely ignored here, for example. It's a useful topic to understand but the number of people here who don't grok basic formal logic is probably very small.
Yes, but this presumes that there is a formal logic, when in fact there's many formal logics. One user might say question X is trivial, but that's only in classical first-order logic, in other logics it might not be so trivial. See for example this entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Classical Logic, I would say it's anything but simple. And of course it has an entire section explaining this isn't the "one right logic", there's many critics and alternatives:
However, as noted, the main meta-theoretic properties of classical, first-order logic lead to expressive limitations of the formal languages and model-theoretic semantics. Key notions, like finitude, countability, minimal closure, natural number, and the like cannot be expressed.
I think it's clearly a fallacy to think that X is trivial because under a particular view (classical first-order logic) it is trivial. Just because something appears trivial doesn't mean that it is.
This presumes the people are actually more knowledgeable. If people are generally more knowledgeable than you, then simplifying a complex concept for you is desirable, but what if in a certain case you are more knowledgeable? In those cases simplifying complex concepts is just condescending.
Haven't you encountered one of those cases when you are in fact the one more knowledgeable and people here still act as if they know more than you?
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
If so, well, a Bayesian wouldn't use just one number here either.
Do you have any source? Everyone I've debated says it's a single number: 50%.
This article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes to great lengths to explain why the standard view of degree of belief is limited and proposes alternative views using imprecise probabilities: Imprecise Probabilities. It seems to confirm my belief that Bayesians consider only a single probability.
That doesn't mean you're right, though.
I thoroughly accept the possibility that my tone is indeed smug.
Here's the asymmetry between you (plural) and me though: I am willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong, you are not. None of the critics of my tone ever accept the remote possibility that they might be wrong.
It is precisely because I accept that possibility that I'm willing to debate it.
At least in some cases it's just that they don't think there's much value in debating with you.
To believe that is fine, but once again: it's an opinion, not a fact: they might be wrong. Maybe there is value in debating me.
This might feel like an infinite regress of "you might be wrong", "I might be wrong about you being wrong", etc. But it's not because I'm not claiming that you are necessarily wrong, and also there's an easy escape: be charitable.
That's why giving people the benefit of the doubt and being charitable is generally good.
I think there's a reason that your articles reliably hit negative score, and it's not because of some kind of mass well-poisoning attempt.
You can be wrong though. Correct?
I think right now you're blaming that on everything except "people don't like my articles"
Once again: you can be wrong.
And here's one piece of evidence that suggests you might be wrong: people in fact do like my articles. Many straight up tell me: "really good article". They heart my articles, they upvote them, share them, retweet them, and even post them in different forums.
at some point you need to ask "what can I do to make my articles more convincing and interesting".
Many people don't share your opinion that they are unconvincing or uninteresting, you are committing the same fallacy of elevating your opinion to a fact.
But fine, let's just say that all the people that like my articles are wrong, what can I do to improve my articles? You don't want to tell me, or you want to tell me, but not for me to reply and engage in a debate.
Whereas what you're doing right now is arguing with people regarding whether or not they like your articles.
No. I'm making the point that /u/magic9mushroom is elevating his opinions that my articles are "smug" and "wrong". If he doesn't like my articles, that's fine, that's his subjective opinion, but that's not what he is saying. It's a fact that he is attempting to poison the well, and instead of engaging with my point you are ignoring it and joining the bandwagon by adding your own opinion.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
It's not the same direction. In subthread a I'm talking about why I don't believe it's good to elevate options to facts, I'm not talking about who/what was claimed to be smug anymore.
In this subthread b I'm asking a simple question: doesn't that say that I was wrong?
In fact before I started subthread b I was going to make a comment in subthread a that I don't believe if I had said "the tone was not smug, you believed it was smug" my point would not have changed at all, even if more technically correct, your initial comment (he said the tone was smug) would not have applied, and I'm pretty sure I still would have been downvoted.
I removed that comment because I didn't want to muddle my point, and I believe it's relatively unimportant what might have happened had I said something else. If you really believe it would have made a difference, I can edit the comment, but I don't think anything would change.
Then I read that he did in fact called me smug a few sentences later, so even if I'm not talking about "my tone"/"the tone" in subthread a anymore (I'm talking about something more important: my original point), I wonder if you still believe he didn't call me smug, when in fact he straight up did. You don't have to answer.
My actual point is in subthread a.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
How ludicrous does the example have to be before you are comfortable with a position of "innocent"?
There is no such thing.
If you are truly just skeptical (after all there is no evidence that such a teapot doesn't exist), then you would of course be singing every night, correct?
False. That would require me believing guilty.
Why take the innocent position and risk missing out on such a reward?
I'm not taking the innocent position. I'm not taking any position.
Unlikely events do happen all the time, but it seems to me your method of thinking is what allows people to believe that impossible things can/have happened, usually defended with "You can't prove it didn't"
Your example is not impossible, just extremely unlikely. If you tell me the teapot has the shape of a triangle with four sides, well, that is truly impossible and I would say innocent.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
The default position is that I do not know if the default position is theism, atheism, agnosticism or something else.
Yes, unless you consider their definitions. My definitions (which are shared by many) are:
-
theism: believing that a god exists
-
atheism: not believing that a god exists
-
agnosticism: not knowing that a god exists
Under these definitions the default position is atheist/agnostic. Atheism answers the question of belief, and agnosticism the question of knowledge: they are orthogonal.
So you are actually arguing (a bit) in favor of atheism.
I believe atheism is the default position, but some people feel that atheism is stronger than agnosticism (I don't agree), or that atheism means "no gods exist" (I don't agree). I skipped a full explanation about these terms because that wasn't the point of the article.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Would you say that most people outside of here would agree that when one assumes something, one cannot have any level of doubt about it?
No, I believe most people outside of here would agree that when one assumes something it can mean that one doesn't have any level of doubt about it.
If so, does she believe there is a 0% chance that she will receive unequivocal evidence otherwise?
Yes, if that's what she believes, which the word "assume" does not necessarily imply.
If she was previously absolutely certain that a dog is in the box, then why wouldn't she adopt one of the alternative hypotheses compatible with both her assumption and the evidence?
Because she might be attempting to be a rational open-minded individual and actually be seeking the truth.
By my prior notion of "believe with zero doubt", your prompt is vacuous, since it is impossible that "Alice believes claim X is true with zero doubt" but also "changes her mind", since if she can change her mind, then she didn't actually have zero doubt.
It's not impossible because of a fundamental aspect of reality: change.
It's entirely possible for x=1 at t=0, and x=0.8 at t=1.
Under that notion, ChatGPT is logically permitted to output whatever it wants, since it is not consistently capable of detecting absurdities in its input.
The fact that you think it's absurd doesn't mean it is absurd. It is not absurd to me.
So whenever you tell ChatGPT that Alice has "zero doubt" or "absolute certainty", it may be inferring that you're probably mistaken or exaggerating (since many people exaggerate all the time), and that Alice is strongly but not absolutely convinced.
It may, but it's clearly not, since in your interaction it said: "If Alice truly had absolutely zero doubt", and then concluded "it would be unlikely for her to change her belief based". You seem to have a motivated reasoning since you are ignoring what it is saying. It's not impossible for Alice to change her belief, even if she truly had absolutely zero doubt.
The first time, you indeed said you believe that the dictionaries are wrong.
No, I said I believed if they said X, then they would be wrong.
How is he "wrong" about his own notion of an assumption?
Because if you flip the definitions they are entirely correct under my view. Even under your view "assume" is stronger than "suppose", and he is saying the opposite.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Yeah, honestly.
No, that's your opinion. Two opinions do not make a fact.
I have done this countless times. I challenge you to find a statement of mine in an article that in your opinion has a "smug" tone, and I'll show you why that's not the (likely) case. Either you misinterpreted something, or you are committing a fallacy, or something. What usually happens when I challenge somebody this way is that they eventually give up.
From a recent ACX post:
ACX is not an arbiter of truth. As shocking as it may be to some people to hear: Scott Alexander is not infallible.
What he is essentially saying in his post is that there's absolutely nothing he can say, he cannot be wrong. If he says "X is true", and later it turns out that "X is false", he is not wrong.
I do strongly encourage people to couch their words as opinions
I do not have a problem with /u/magic9mushroom not couching his opinion, he didn't couch his opinion, Scott Alexander didn't couch his opinion, that's fine. What I have a problem with is continuing the discussion as if X is indeed true: it is smuggling an opinion.
There's a rule that says "don't attempt to build consensus", what he is doing is essentially silently building consensus, now people are primed to believe that his opinion ("the tone was rather smug") is a fact. I replied "I was not smug, you believed I was smug", but the "fact" has already been established, so now I'm downvoted for challenging a "fact".
You can say it doesn't matter because this "isn't sensitive", but the other claim that my articles "made catastrophic mistakes in understanding the topic" is also elevating an opinion to a fact, and I believe that is important. It's another smuggled "fact" that now everyone believes. No, it's not a fact my articles made "catastrophic mistakes", it's only his opinion.
This is 100% attempting to poison the well, not only for this post, but for every other article that I write, and every comment that I write, because I am generally "smugly wrong" (I am not). He is claiming that I have been generally "smugly wrong", but I'm the bad guy for challenging that "fact" and claiming that's not necessarily true.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Do you believe people here pretend to be smarter than they are?
I've seen many people in The Motte claim something along the lines of "that's basic" as if only high-brow discussions were interesting, or as if they were the arbiters of what's "basic" and what's "advanced", or even as if they completely understood the "basic" notion.
It's almost as if the opposite of bike-shedding was sought: everyone claims they want to discuss about the plans for a nuclear power plant (very complex), not the bicycle shed materials which are way too simple.
So everyone who aims to discuss about the nuclear power plant plans is rewarded (even if nobody really understands them), and everyone who wants to talk about something everyone can understand is punished (nobody wants to talk about what they can easily understand).
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
So would you say that ChatGPT disagrees with your notion of "assuming" in my example?
No.
If not, then how could Alice change her mind from the indirect evidence, if she had zero doubt that there was only a dog in the box?
First: I think you misinterpreted what ChatGPT said, and second: ChatGPT can seem to disagree in one interaction, and agree in another, it depends on how the question was posed.
I bombarded ChatGPT with questions about the matter, and everything aligned to my notion, for example "If Alice believes claim X is true with zero doubt, can she change her mind?" it answered "Yes", which is obvious to me. Alice believes claim X with zero doubt in one moment, but then receive evidence contradicting that belief (which was assumed in the first place), why wouldn't she change her mind?
But to be crystal clear I asked this killer question:
If Alice believes claim X is true with zero doubt, but then finds out indirect evidence that claim X may not be true and changes her mind, can it be said that Alice no longer assumes claim X is true?
If Alice believes claim X is true with zero doubt, but then finds out indirect evidence that claim X may not be true and changes her mind, it can be said that Alice no longer assumes claim X is true. An assumption is something taken for granted without being verified, whereas a belief is something considered to be true based on evidence and reasoning. When new evidence comes up, it's important to evaluate it and adjust one's beliefs and assumptions accordingly. In this case, Alice's belief was based on a zero doubt, but when new evidence came up, she changed her mind, which indicates that she no longer takes claim X as a given, and it is no longer an assumption. It's important to note that changing one's mind or updating beliefs and assumptions is a natural and healthy process, and it's a sign of a rational and open-minded individual.
How does this not align precisely to my notion? I didn't even use the term "assume" throughout the question, I used it only to verify the outcome.
You're calling people (like the dictionary author, or the second person I questioned) "wrong" when they say that you can "assume" something while still doubting it to some extent.
No, I said: if a dictionary says that to believe something is to assume it, then I believe it's wrong. I did not say the dictionary is wrong, I said that I believe it is wrong.
This is completely different from linking "assume" to doubt.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
If somebody is writing in an angry tone, it means that person is acting angry. You can say that you can't assume that just because a person is acting angry it means that person is actually angry.
But everyone assumes that if somebody says "you seem angry", that carries an implication that the person is claiming that you are indeed angry.
Sure, technically the person did not claim that you are actually angry, but I find it extremely curious that you bend over backwards to defend /u/magic9mushroom's claim that "the tone was rather smug", and explore what could have been the target, but you don't extend even a fraction of the same generosity to my prose.
Did my prose actually had a smug tone? That is the question that matters, not what was the target of /u/magic9mushroom's comment. He made the claim that "the tone was rather smug", that's not a fact, that's a subjective opinion which he is presenting as fact. If it seemed smug to him, that's fine, he could say "the tone seemed rather smug", and that would be accurate (according to him).
But just because a tone seemed smug to a person doesn't mean the tone was actually smug, just like if somebody seems angry that doesn't mean the person is actually angry: that's just your perception.
Why aren't you generous towards that distinction as well?
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Yes, but the true danger is certainty. Both people in the pro and anti camps make absolute statements like "the world is going to end in ten years" and "climate has always changed", and these statements can't possibly be rationally substantiated in such a complex system.
The only path forward is epistemic humility, and both camps seem to lack it.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Sure, my point is just that your meaning can't be supported by that definition alone.
I did not claim my meaning was supported by that definition alone.
That particular dictionary says the exact opposite of what you're saying.
That's not what I'm saying, that's what your dictionary is saying. You are proving that the dictionaries disagree, which is what I'm saying.
That's the whole thesis of "The Categories Were Made for Man, Not Man for the Categories": nearly all our categories are fuzzy and ill-defined, but they're still useful enough that we talk about them anyway.
That is what I'm saying. In one context the word "theory" means something for most people, in another context it means something else.
You can't say the word "assume" means X and only X in all contexts and here's a dictionary that says so, because that's not how language works, not all dictionaries agree, and dictionaries are not perfect.
You can't say that my categorization system is an error, and you can't say only your categorization system should be considered by default, especially when it's not clear that everyone is following it.
I asked ChatGPT the question, and the interpretation it produced is certainly far less strong than your standard of "zero possible doubt" regarding an assumption
To me it said: «to "assume" something is to accept it as true without proof of evidence». That to me doesn't include doubt, because it's true a priori: it's just true.
He replied that the difference is that you assume something before it occurs, but you suppose it while it's occurring or after it occurs.
That aligns with my notion of a priori: you don't need evidence for an assumption, it's just true.
He replied that when you assume something, you're not entirely sure whether or not it's true, but when you suppose something, you have some kind of predetermined knowledge that it's true.
He is wrong: it's the other way around.
After several seconds of thought, she replied that she had no clue, then her friend chimed in to say she also had no clue.
That's what I claim many rational people should do in most circumstances.
ChatGPT, the dictionaries I've checked, and the ordinary people I've asked all give different definitions of "assume" and "suppose", none of which include your standard of zero possible doubt in order to assume something.
That isn't true, that's what you are assuming. It could be that you misinterpreted, and I contend that you did.
You contend that it means "strong supposition", yet the first person you asked said nothing like that, and the second person talked about "predetermined knowledge".
Therefore, I have strong evidence
I guess your definition of "strong evidence" and mine are very different.
What evidence do you have that common usage recognizes your hard boundary, so hard that to cross it is to be unambiguously incorrect?
I never claimed such a thing.
You are the one that claimed most people here equate "assume" with "strong supposition", and that that's what common people believe as well. But there's nothing you have provided to substantiate that. Even the testimonies you provided said nothing about "strong supposition", they talked about "before it occurs" and "predetermined knowledge" which very strongly suggests: without proof of evidence.
Either way I don't have to provide evidence because I did not make that claim, you made the claim that my understanding of "assume" is at odds with what most people understand by that word, but the evidence you yourself provided shows otherwise. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. The person that said to assume is to consider something true before it occurs is completely aligned with my notion of considering something true without evidence.
I don't have to show that my notion is shared by everyone, because I did not claim that, all I need to show is that your notion of "strong supposition" is not shared by everyone, and you yourself proved that.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Just google: "not guilty" versus "innocent":
As a verdict, not guilty means the fact finder finds that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. A not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant truly is innocent but rather that for legal purposes they will be found not guilty because the prosecution did not meet the burden.
Being found “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong enough for a guilty verdict.
While in lay usage the term ‘not guilty’ is often synonymous with ‘innocent,’ in American criminal jurisprudence they are not the same. ‘Not guilty’ is a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof.
Not guilty does not mean innocent.
But the reality is that no amount of evidence is going make you accept you were wrong, is there?
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
The definition is circular: it doesn't lead to your interpretation of "to assume" as "to believe true with absolutely zero possible doubt".
Many definitions on all dictionaries are circular. Language is not an easy thing, which is why AI still has not been able to master it.
That leads to the usage of the term by many here, where to make an assumption about something is to make a strong judgment about its nature, while still possibly holding some amount of doubt.
No, that's not what the definition is saying. "[[[judge true] or deem to be true] as true or real] or without proof". There is no possibility of doubt. It's judged/deemed/considered to be true.
But if common usage recognized your boundaries, then the dictionaries would be flat-out wrong to say that, e.g., to believe something is to assume it, suppose it, or hold it as an opinion (where an opinion is explicitly a belief less strong than positive knowledge).
I believe they are. dictionary.com says "believe" is "assume", but Merriam-Webster does not. One of them has to be wrong.
That's the whole reason dictionaries exist: people disagree.
That's why I suspect that your understanding of the terms is not aligned with common usage, since the dictionaries trample all over your boundaries.
One dictionary does, not all.
BTW. I used ChatGPT and asked it if it saw any difference between "assume" and "suppose", and it 100% said exactly what is my understanding.
Also, I think that "certainty" in a Bayesian context is best treated as a term of art, equivalent to "degree of belief": a measure of one's belief in the likelihood of an event.
There's a big difference in saying "I'm 75% certain X is true", and "I'm certain X is 75%". If I believe it's likely that Ukraine launched a missile and not Russia, I'm saying I'm 75% certain that's true, I don't think there's an event which is 75% likely. I believe most people think this way, and it's more rational.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
In the eyes of the law, it is the same. Every legal consequence is the same.
And yet every legal resource out there claims they are most assuredly not the same.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
I know about human behavior enough to know that a person who thinks asking a woman out would end up with him murdered or in jail
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I think.
I don't need to, if I can observe your behavior and if I can assume you not entirely unlike a typical human.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
In your view, is "believing" something equivalent to supposing it with 100% certainty (or near-100% certainty)?
No.
I have a strong suspicion that your epistemic terminology is very different from most other people's, and they aren't going to learn anything from your claims if you use your terminology without explaining it upfront.
How so? I believe the Bayesian notion that you can believe something 60% is what is not shared by most people. Most people either believe something or they don't.
For instance, people may have been far more receptive to your "2 + 2" post if you'd explained what you mean by an "assumption", since most people here were under the impression that by an "assumption" you meant a "strong supposition".
There's a difference between most people and most people "here". My understanding of "assume" is in accordance with many dictionaries, for example: to take as granted or true.
So it's hard to tell what you mean by "people who follow Bayesian thinking confuse certainty with belief" if we misunderstand what you mean by "certainty" or "belief".
-
certainty: a quality of being proven to be true
-
belief: something considered to be true
Something can be 60% proven to be true, it can't be 60% considered true.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
And I did not claim that they said that I did. But if I'm not following Russian sources it means I got the information from a non-Russian source, and I can tell you they are generally reliable.
It's possible that my source is right. Just because something happens to be used in Russian propaganda doesn't mean it's wrong.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
That is coming only from blatant pro Russia-propaganda.
I do not follow Russian sources. If you want me to follow up on my sources I can do that, but to dismiss everything if that turned out to be unsubstantiated is a fallacy.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
If a Bayesian starts with no reason for a prior belief the coin is biased in a particular direction then their prior probability for the next flip being heads will be 50%
If you flip 1000 times and it comes up 500 heads and 500 tails, then perhaps your belief the next flip is heads is still at 50%
That is precisely what I am saying.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
Because if you look at historical polls and elections you can see Ukraine has been pro-Russia a substantial amount of its short history, in particular the regions in the east, and in particular the regions in the east that speak Russian. If you look at recent polls like "Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war" you can see these regions as not particularly eager to continue fighting, it's only the western regions that want to fight, and in particular Kiev. If you look at a density map you'd see the south-eastern regions are particularly denser.
There's also the referendums where a significant part of the population voted to join Russia. Even if you consider them a complete sham, there are interviews of people voting clearly wanting to be part of Russia.
I believe people underestimate the desire for peace and having a normal life, and also the devastation of war. Which is why I don't find surprising at all the westerns part of Ukraine so eager to continue the fight: they haven't seen any of it. The regions who have been devastated by the conflict the most are the ones most eager for it to stop.
Moreover a lot of things can change, for example there's talk of Poland absorbing part of the western region of Ukraine, other neighboring countries could also do the same. If that happens Ukraine will be left without the most anti-Russian population.
Plus, Russia is already helping the new territories it has annexed, that could sway opinion in their favor.
And finally there's a lot of information in Telegram channels which if true would paint in a greener light the Russian forces and the Ukrainian ones much less so, which will eventually move public opinion.
In just don't trust Western mainstream media to paint an accurate picture of what Ukrainian people actually want.
I'm sure you've heard the idea that the LessWrong movement is a cult. I'm not going to claim that because I don't know enough about it yet, but it does have a certain feeling of that. I see a lot of self-referencing: many terms are used only within the movement, and many articles refer to other articles within, which in turn refer to other articles. Too many inside jokes.
So for an article to gain top-shelf status it seems it has to use so many inside terms--and preferably inside terms that in turn require inside terms to understand--that only people on the inside could get, not the "normies".
So a "normie" article would just not cut it, regardless of useful the insight, especially if the insight is accesible by anyone (the plebs). I guess elitist is the word.
There's also an element of converse error fallacy (I've seen that a lot): "this seems trivial to me (and I'm rather intelligent), therefore it has to be trivial". But simple does not necessarily mean trivial.
I want to write a whole article about this, but take for example Karl Popper's falsifiability principle: it's exceedingly simple and yet it's anything but inconsequential. I'm pretty sure if the principle hadn't already been laid out, it would have been dismissed in this forum because "it's trivial".
More options
Context Copy link