3 ms·

I'm not swayed by the arguments that the white house is compromised. But I do appreciate the significance of the question "find the daylight between the actions

I'm not swayed by the arguments that the white house is compromised. But I do appreciate the significance of the question "find the daylight between the actions of the white house and the actions of an ideal agent". You're a physician, your patient is running a fever of 42°C, that's very quickly going to become fatal. Do you administer antipyretics and cold compresses now, or do you debate the likely causes, and attempt the root cause analysis?

mbrumlow 2y ago
First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C. Faulty instruments or clerical errors could have lead us to believe the patient was 42C. The fist thing the doctor would do would likely be place their hand on the patients forehead and then take additional readings to confirm the prognosis. Last thing you would want to do is cold plunge a patient when instrumentation has extreme bias.
- grayhatter 2y ago
  > First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C. This is known as rejecting the hypothetical. The only time it's a good faith argument is after you've agreed with the conclusion. If you do agree with the argument, you should cite something verifiable that the white house has done that's incompatible with the original assertion. Which is the actions are indistinguishable from an ideal agent. Do you have any provable examples?