Yet another weird SF fan


I'm a mathematician, a libertarian, and a science-fiction fan. Common sense? What's that?

Go to first entry


 

Archives

<< current
 
E-mail address:
jhertzli AT ix DOT netcom DOT com


My Earthlink/Netcom Site

My Tweets

My other blogs
Small Sample Watch
XBM Graphics


The Former Four Horsemen of the Ablogalypse:
Someone who used to be sane (formerly War)
Someone who used to be serious (formerly Plague)
Rally 'round the President (formerly Famine)
Dr. Yes (formerly Death)

Interesting weblogs:
Back Off Government!
Bad Science
Blogblivion
Boing Boing
Debunkers Discussion Forum
Deep Space Bombardment
Depleted Cranium
Dr. Boli’s Celebrated Magazine.
EconLog
Foreign Dispatches
Good Math, Bad Math
Greenie Watch
The Hand Of Munger
Howard Lovy's NanoBot
Hyscience
Liberty's Torch
The Long View
My sister's blog
Neo Warmonger
Next Big Future
Out of Step Jew
Overcoming Bias
The Passing Parade
Peter Watts Newscrawl
Physics Geek
Pictures of Math
Poor Medical Student
Prolifeguy's take
The Raving Theist
RealityCarnival
Respectful Insolence
Sedenion
Seriously Science
Shtetl-Optimized
Slate Star Codex
The Speculist
The Technoptimist
TJIC
Tools of Renewal
XBM Graphics
Zoe Brain

Other interesting web sites:
Aspies For Freedom
Crank Dot Net
Day By Day
Dihydrogen Monoxide - DHMO Homepage
Fourmilab
Jewish Pro-Life Foundation
Libertarians for Life
The Mad Revisionist
Piled Higher and Deeper
Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism
Sustainability of Human Progress


























Yet another weird SF fan
 

Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Trouble with High-Level Understanding

According to SilasBarta22 on LessWrong, at the highest-level of understanding:

At this stage, not only do you have good, well-connected models of reality, but they are so well-grounded, that they "regenerate" when "damaged".  That is, you weren't merely fed these wonderful models outright by some other Really Smart Being (though initially you might have been), but rather, you also consistently use a reliable method for gaining knowledge, and this method would eventually stumble upon the same model you have now, no matter how much knowledge is stripped away from it.
The trouble with this is you might be fooling yourself into thinking you have such a deep understanding and then derive conclusions based on your erroneous model that you don't think you have to check.

For example, I've read that part of the initial reaction to Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein came from people who noticed that the book was very pro-military and then deduced from that that Heinlein must have been pro-conscription. That turned out not to be the case. I suspect that the deductions were done by people who thought they had a well-grounded understanding of “militarists.” As a result, they were confident about regenerating Heinlein's opinion of conscription. (I have earlier mentioned other examples of the same phenomenon.)

1 Comments:

Blogger Aaron said...

Or the assumption that anyone who would join our all volunteer military must then be a fascist or at least authoritarian. Basing this on their model of the military as authoritarian, which it is, or fascist, which it isn't.

3:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Profiles
My Blogger Profile
eXTReMe Tracker X-treme Tracker

Site Meter
The Atom Feed This page is powered by Blogger.