4 ms·
> Because belief isn't all-or-nothing. Why not? > Yes, it is exactly what I'm saying. Here, let me save us a few rounds: No it's not. Yes it is. No it's n
by diminoten 13y ago
> Because belief isn't all-or-nothing.
Why not?
> Yes, it is exactly what I'm saying.
Here, let me save us a few rounds:
No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
Now how about you rephrase what you wrote so we can move forward?
- dragonwriter 13y ago> > Because belief isn't all-or-nothing. > Why not? There a point that can be reached in a discussion where you realize that (assuming the other participant is honest, without which there are other insurmountable problems) you just don't have the requisite common understanding of reality to have a fruitful discussion. The point at which you question the idea that belief, in general, isn't necessarily absolute is that point, for me, in this discussion.
- diminoten 13y agoSo you can't explain why you believe something you do? I agree. It is at this point when I cannot continue a discussion. Have a good day.
- dllthomas 13y agoI expect the following is relevant to dragonwriter's thinking: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mp/0_and_1_are_not_probabilities http://lesswrong.com/lw/mp/0_and_1_are_not_probabilities Meanwhile, we might all do well to read and reflect on http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_distances http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_dista...