For the evidential game, it doesn't just matter whether you co-operate or not, but why. Different why's will be more or less likely to be adopted by the other agents.
It's something people say, but don't necessarily fully believe
I appreciated this post for explaining Berkeley's beliefs really clearly to me. I never knew what he was going on about before.
Would be happy to try this
POSTED ON WRONG ACCOUNT
In a booming market, buying can be valuable as a hedge against rising house prices
Yeah, I meant part 7. What did he say about feminism and neoreaction?
I'd like to know more about the dark sides part of the book
I'd still like the ability to make the explicit abstract just read off the text after a certain point, but I suppose it would require a lot of work to support that functionality.
I agree fairly strongly, but this seems far from the final word on the subject, to me.
Hmm, actually I think you're right and that it may be more complex than this.
Ah. I take you to be saying that the quality of the clever arguer's argument can be high variance, since there is a good deal of chance in the quality of evidence cherry-picking is able to find. A good point.
Exactly. There may only be a weak correlation between evidence and truth. And maybe you can do something with it or maybe it's better to focus on stronger signals instead.