5 ms·

“ Same with philosophies, nationalities, norms, and concepts like loyalty, destiny, and identity. None of these are true. But they are useful.” His use of the

“ Same with philosophies, nationalities, norms, and concepts like loyalty, destiny, and identity. None of these are true. But they are useful.” His use of the word ‘useful’ implies he classifies things as ‘useful’ and ‘useless’ according to some absolute value system that he considers evidently true but that in reality is no more or less valid that those things he lists as merely useful.

adolph 4y ago
All models are wrong is a common aphorism in statistics; it is often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The aphorism acknowledges that statistical models always fall short of the complexities of reality but can still be useful nonetheless. The aphorism originally referred just to statistical models, but it is now sometimes used for scientific models in general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Sakos 4y ago
I struggle to understand what the point of this comment is. Yes, we know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You don't have to believe him or agree with anything he says. That's ... how it works. I generally find his posts quite helpful and useful. Even ones where I might not agree with him. Your comment is noise. It's just blind criticism without actually saying anything. I don't find it helpful or useful. "His value system could be valid or not valid". Also, water is wet and British food sucks.
- xwowsersx 4y ago
  Huh? No. As I understand it, GP is making the point that implicit in Sivers' idea is that there actually is, at bottom, a notion of objective truth that is more than merely this sort of utilitarian notion of useful. Because in order to even judge whether something is useful or helps to achieve some beneficial end in any way that we'd care about, one must have some axiological conception in mind. Also, I really don't understand why your comment is so biting and aggressive and how you finding his posts helpful and useful is responsive to GP's point? Did GP offer some general critique of his posts? Maybe GP also finds them generally helpful and useful, but had a point to make about this specific post? Your entire response is generally strange and the rudeness is unwarranted.
  - galactus 4y ago
    You explained it better than I did, thanks
  - Sakos 4y ago
    > implicit in Sivers' idea is that there actually is, at bottom, a notion of objective truth that is more than merely this sort of utilitarian notion of useful. Sivers' perspective is subjective. As most opinions are. So even if he is implying an "objective truth", none of us are obliged to treat it that way. But that isn't specific to Sivers or his above post. That literally applies to everybody. Again, it's like saying water is wet.

adolph 4y ago

All models are wrong is a common aphorism in statistics; it is often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The aphorism acknowledges that statistical models always fall short of the complexities of reality but can still be useful nonetheless. The aphorism originally referred just to statistical models, but it is now sometimes used for scientific models in general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

Sakos 4y ago

I struggle to understand what the point of this comment is. Yes, we know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You don't have to believe him or agree with anything he says. That's ... how it works. I generally find his posts quite helpful and useful. Even ones where I might not agree with him. Your comment is noise. It's just blind criticism without actually saying anything. I don't find it helpful or useful. "His value system could be valid or not valid". Also, water is wet and British food sucks.

xwowsersx 4y ago
Huh? No. As I understand it, GP is making the point that implicit in Sivers' idea is that there actually is, at bottom, a notion of objective truth that is more than merely this sort of utilitarian notion of useful. Because in order to even judge whether something is useful or helps to achieve some beneficial end in any way that we'd care about, one must have some axiological conception in mind. Also, I really don't understand why your comment is so biting and aggressive and how you finding his posts helpful and useful is responsive to GP's point? Did GP offer some general critique of his posts? Maybe GP also finds them generally helpful and useful, but had a point to make about this specific post? Your entire response is generally strange and the rudeness is unwarranted.
- galactus 4y ago
  You explained it better than I did, thanks
- Sakos 4y ago
  > implicit in Sivers' idea is that there actually is, at bottom, a notion of objective truth that is more than merely this sort of utilitarian notion of useful. Sivers' perspective is subjective. As most opinions are. So even if he is implying an "objective truth", none of us are obliged to treat it that way. But that isn't specific to Sivers or his above post. That literally applies to everybody. Again, it's like saying water is wet.