Kenny2
12
2
4
Kenny2 has not written any posts yet.
The example is really helpful for me getting a concrete understanding of what it looks like to satisfy Trust without Reflection, and why that goes along with deferring to someone else for decisions - but I don't see what this example of Alice has to do with locality. It looks like the only relevant propositions are whether it rains tomorrow, and what Alice's credences are, and there don't seem to be any propositions we don't defer to her on.
Nice explanation of the paper!
I really like the trust principle in the paper, about what we can say about the relationship between credence functions when one person would prefer to use another person's credences than their own. But I'm skeptical about the concept that seems to initially motivate it, namely, the idea that some people might actually be experts. Does any of this depend on there being such a proposition, or can we do it all in a language without such propositions?
I think this shows clearly that dynamics don't always lead to the same things as equilibrium rationality concepts. If someone is already convinced that the dynamics matter, this leads naturally to the thought that the equilibrium concepts are missing something important. But I think that at least some discussions of rationality (including some on this site) seem like they might be committed to some sort of "high road" idea under which it really is the equilibrium concept that is core to rationality, and that dynamics were at best a suggestive motivation. (I think I see this in some of the discussions of something like functional decision theory as "that decision theory that... (read more)
This year's ACX Meetup everywhere in Bryan/College Station, TX.
Location: Back patio of Torchy's Tacos at Texas and New Main – 8625JMFC+5M
Contact: easwaran@gmail.com
This year's ACX Meetup everywhere in Bryan/College Station, TX.
Location: Patio behind Torchy's Tacos on Texas Ave. I'll have a yellow umbrella (even if it's not raining) and purple hair. – ///musical.airship.viewers
Contact: easwaran@gmail.com
This is nice. The "Fruit in the Hand" part also seems to me to line up nicely with the claim that the social sciences deal with more complex questions - if we have more innate faculties for making predictions about social matters than about physical ones, then the questions we want to ask the social scientists start from a higher baseline than the questions we want to ask the physical scientists.
One type of traditional explanation that I'm not sure if you mentioned is the problem of reflexivity - theorizing about society creates a new object (the theory) that influences the society, while theorizing about the physical world doesn't usually create a new... (read more)