> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
> I agree that for psycholog...(read more)