User Profile


Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Looking for ideas about Epistemology related topics

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Effective Altruism : An idea repository

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Epistemology vs Critical Thinking

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

> I suspect that you are leaping to the idea of "infinite regress" much too quickly, and also failing to look past it or try to simply "patch" the regress in a practical way when you say

No. I mention the practical patch right after : epistemies.

> The remarkable magical thing about humans is not...(read more)

Indeed, we were talking about rationalists (not only LW, but SlateStarCodex too for instance).

I think there are meaningful instinctive differences too, but that's not the point, is it ? If it was, then we can assume that people holds beliefs too. Sometime they change their beliefs too because of r...(read more)

I agree with your model, but without the nerd-exception.

The lack of nerd focus on epistemology and meta-ethics implies that nerds don't have beliefs either.

They do have pressures to appear rational. Either external (peer pressure) or internal (intelligence/rationality being part of the core ide...(read more)

> I suppose I do insofar as the very act of experiencing experience is experience and thus by at all noticing your experience you know a way of knowing. And although you may infer things about epistemology from ontology, you cannot derive them because ontology must be constructed from knowledge gain...(read more)

> But you do because fields are just an after-the-fact construction to make understanding reality more manageable. There's just one reality (for a phenomenologically useful sense of "reality" as the thing which you experience), fields just pick a part of it to focus on, and as such there is much ove...(read more)

> Certainly a person's epistemology affects their understanding of many things

I think having an epistemy to deal with everything is a mistake. It stems from the post that the strength of an epistemy lies from its specialization.

> I guess it's somewhat unclear to me just what work "epistemy" is d...(read more)

Thank you for your thorough answer. :)

I am not asking for a general discussion place, but for an idea repository with dedicated discussion places.

From the post :

>The current forum doesn’t cut it : it isn’t meant to that end. It’s easier to build a forum dedicated to that than try to artificially support a balance between “New Ideas”...(read more)

I initially needed an editor I was used to to link a post to someone on the EA Discord Server.

I thought I might as well do it on LW to gather input from LWians.

> Most scientists haven't read Popper and those people in history of science that analyze what scientists actually do, don't find that scientists follow Popper's maxims.

As far as I know, this is still subject of debates. cf

> I agree that for psycholog...(read more)