3 ms·

That's completely missing the point. The point is, do you accept that unpleasant Truth, do you reject it, or do you weigh whatever other values you have against

by esyir 5y ago

That's completely missing the point. The point is, do you accept that unpleasant Truth, do you reject it, or do you weigh whatever other values you have against that truth and ignore it. That's what that question is.

dale_glass 5y ago
You can't make that question in the general sense and draw useful conclusions. Eg, it's an "unpleasant Truth" that you're at a risk of dying in a car accident. But yeah, we just decide it's worth going out anyway, and ignore it. But that isn't applicable to a similar "unpleasant Truth" that welding on a gas tank could get you killed. The task is different, the risks are different, the tradeoffs are different, the ways to compensate for danger are different. All such things are very contextual. Trying to divine some sort of general rule or philosophy doesn't really work.
- esyir 5y ago
  Honestly, both of these, the car accident and the gas tank are being treated exactly the same here. You've looked at the given "truth", evaluated it, and then come to a decision on whether it's worth it or not. It's explicitly making that decision and that trade off. what andrepd said felt far more like a handwave >However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise. It's a denial of a hypothetical, which is not engaging with the core point, but instead attacking the analogy instead. It's a standard (and often unintentional) logical fallacy. This is my interpretation of the conversation. Please avoid approaching this from the "perfect hypotheticals" perspective, their perfection is besides the point. A: We have a perfect target metric, and we've found that C, which we philosophically like, performs far worse than B, which we find abhorrent B: There's no perfect metric, and if there were, we've already found C is better, and there's no way how C could be worse. It's deliberately avoiding the point. To break it down even further: >However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. we've already found C is better >It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise. there's no way how C could be worse.
raxxorrax 5y ago
No. Because your result won't simply be the truth. Especially if it unpleasant. Why would it be if it is optimal. Optimal for pension system is to kill your grandpa. Do you accept that? I hope not.

by esyir 5y ago

dale_glass 5y ago

You can't make that question in the general sense and draw useful conclusions. Eg, it's an "unpleasant Truth" that you're at a risk of dying in a car accident. But yeah, we just decide it's worth going out anyway, and ignore it. But that isn't applicable to a similar "unpleasant Truth" that welding on a gas tank could get you killed. The task is different, the risks are different, the tradeoffs are different, the ways to compensate for danger are different. All such things are very contextual. Trying to divine some sort of general rule or philosophy doesn't really work.

esyir 5y ago
Honestly, both of these, the car accident and the gas tank are being treated exactly the same here. You've looked at the given "truth", evaluated it, and then come to a decision on whether it's worth it or not. It's explicitly making that decision and that trade off. what andrepd said felt far more like a handwave >However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise. It's a denial of a hypothetical, which is not engaging with the core point, but instead attacking the analogy instead. It's a standard (and often unintentional) logical fallacy. This is my interpretation of the conversation. Please avoid approaching this from the "perfect hypotheticals" perspective, their perfection is besides the point. A: We have a perfect target metric, and we've found that C, which we philosophically like, performs far worse than B, which we find abhorrent B: There's no perfect metric, and if there were, we've already found C is better, and there's no way how C could be worse. It's deliberately avoiding the point. To break it down even further: >However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. we've already found C is better >It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise. there's no way how C could be worse.

raxxorrax 5y ago

No. Because your result won't simply be the truth. Especially if it unpleasant. Why would it be if it is optimal. Optimal for pension system is to kill your grandpa. Do you accept that? I hope not.