I think Science and Sanity lays out a framework for dealing with beliefs that doesn't categories them into true/false that is better than the basic true/false dichomity.

Using a ramified logic with more than two truth values is not the same as not using logic at all!

I care more about what Science and Sanity called semantic reactions than I care about presuppositions.

Basically you feed the relevant data into your mind and then you let it process the data. As a result of processing it there a semantic reaction. Internally the brain does that with a neura

... (read more)

Using a ramified logic with more than two truth values is not the same as not using logic at all!

Could you define what you mean with "logic" if not thinking in terms of whether a statement is true?

0ChristianKl4yIf you agree that it covers superforcasting than my argument is right. Using presuppotions is a very particular way of reasoning and there are many other possible heuristics that can be used. A LW comment also isn't long enough to lay out a complete system of reasoning as complex as the one proposed in Science and Sanity or that proposed in Superforcasting. That why I refer to general arguments are refer to the books for a more detailed explanation of particular heuristics.

Open thread, Jul. 25 - Jul. 31, 2016

by MrMind 1 min read25th Jul 2016133 comments

3


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.


Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "