Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


Salafi support will decrease tremendously no matter what you say, Syria is too important, it defeats all other concerns and is preeminent not only right now, but for history. Syria has greco-roman heritage too. Only white people would obscurantly try to say Trump is not a great candidate.

I don't think that the world would give a president Trump prestige even if he ends the Syrian war.

They gave some random ass president prestige for destroying 3 countries and accomplishing nothing significant. My race is the race of the anti-mohammeans, and such are my metaphysical biases, that will remain this way.

I blocked Eliezer for gossiping too much and doing everything he can via gossip to manufacture support for his views, such as saying he knew Peter Thiel and Thiel wans't going to support Trump, I support both but he did not correct himself afaik and I blocked him because of excessively propagandizing their own views he did it to take the edge off Mr.Thiels endorsement. Julia Galef is another one that cannot stop the excessive posturing fashion show.

The situation in Syria is too important you guys, nothing else matters if we bring that one home we get our prestige back, the rest of the world has to deal with Salafi support, Saudi Arabia backed HRC with a lot of money, HRC works favor to favors, Trump hates Salafi/Saudi's , next the oil price is lower than is good for Saudi Arabia so much that ARAMCO oil had to go public and sell of 10% of their shares, this was no doubt a very bitter moment for the House of Saud, anyways because the oil price is low this is the perfect time that everyone get's their vengeance for the mess that Saudi Arabia has generated, who is actually funding ISIS, but is also responsible for AQ and all other extremist islamic ideologies.

There's no other time that's better than now, shut up, we gotta do it.

  • I know he knows Peter Thiel he just didn't correct himself but used his privileged position to say he didn't to manufacture support for his own views

First i've heard of this, super interesting. Hmm. So what is the correct way to highlight the differences while still maintaining the historical angle? Continue w/ Riemannian geometry? Or just say what you have said, Lorentzian.

I'm not sure I understand claims are supposed to be ) Universal ) not spatio-temporally restricted right? I thought pseudo-statements were a good example....?

I'm not even sure what he is asking for..

Wikipedia lists the "all swans are white" as an example for a falsifiable statement, but it is not practical enough. To prove that all swans are white would require to observe all the swans in the world. I'm searching of a simple example which uses the scientific method to determine the workings of an unknown system, starting by forming a good hypothesis.

Falsifiability was created for non spatio-temporally universal statements right? The point is that those are unverifiable. So OP saying "all swans are white" is not verifiable is part of the point for why falsifiability was introduced and cannot be merely taken out.

OP seems to say he wants a statement where you could verify all claims(?) Or hints towards that (by expressing displeasure against the all swans are white example) but the point is that claim is not verifiable, but falsifiable. So why is that example unsatisfactory? He seems to want to make falsifiability something other than what it is.

again > To prove that all swans are white would require to observe all the swans in the world.

Help me out here?

Falsifiability is used to separate science vs metaphysics, as a criterion of demarcation, so how is the OP's example of the 2-4-6 game even make sense? I'm not quite sure I understand what any one is asking.

"We must clearly distinguish between falsifiability and falsification. e have introduced falsifiability solely as criterion for the empirical character of a system of statements. As to falsification, special rules must be introduced which will determine under what conditions a system is to be regarded as falsified. "

So the flying spaghetti monster example or my example does work, doesn't it? Ok fine I see this line was the critical one here.

"A good working example would be one, where we want to study a familiar concept, but by forgetting to take falsifiability into account, we arrive to an obviously wrong (and preferably humorous) conclusion."

And it's written by val so I assume it's for CFAR?


[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Something tells me Gigerenzer is misquoting Kahneman, he is just saying any deviation from that counts as irrational and measuring that as his baseline, i'm more than sure he would be happy to use ecological rationality as a baseline as well.

He liked Bostrom's new institute dedicated to existential risks. He doesn't think AI is a ruin-style risk, saying it requires "risk vigilance" but isn't a ruin type risk yet, and that he would be willing to reconsider later.

He has his own risk initiative called the "Extreme risk initiative".

Excellent piece of epistemology from Yudkowsky, someone put this in main right now.

AllLivesMatterButBlackLivesAreEspeciallyLikelyToBeEndedByPolice AndItsOkayForNationalPoliticsToFocusOnThatPartForAWhile

Running this through my parser I was able to extract the statement "All live matter but black lives are especially likely to be ended by police and it's okay for national politics to focus on that part for awhile".

=/ We should tell him the opportunity cost of this stuff is too large, don't run down the clock on your life. Eugine_Nier go get a more productive way to channel this frustration.

Load More