9 ms·

Since we know the conclusion to be false, any reasoning that would support this hypothetical turtle's conclusion that no seafarers existed in 1450 is inarguably

Since we know the conclusion to be false, any reasoning that would support this hypothetical turtle's conclusion that no seafarers existed in 1450 is inarguably an example of bad reasoning.

gpm 5y ago
No, because the turtle is concluding that it's likely false, not definitely false. There happens to be a cosmic coincidence working against the turtle, but that doesn't mean that it was bad reasoning to conclude that the cosmic coincidence was very unlikely.
- addingnumbers 5y ago
  The turtle is saying with certainty, not likelihood, that no seafarers exist, analogous with the explicit conclusion (3) in the top level comment
  - gpm 5y ago
    People are lazy when they speak, it's best to understand basically every claim as probabilistic (and meaning "almost certainly") even when it isn't stated as such. Certainly no-one would make the claim that "there are (definitely) no aliens in the galaxy" when we can't disprove the idea that aliens traveling at the speed of light just reached the galaxy (with our current understanding of physics). That doesn't mean you can't make the claim "there are (almost definitely) no aliens in the galaxy (because I just created the most amazing telescope ever and looked at every particle of matter in the galaxy and there were no aliens there)". The principle of charity demands that understand the bare claim that "there are no aliens in the galaxy" to mean something that is plausible, such as "there are almost certainly no aliens in the galaxy".
    - addingnumbers 5y ago
      A line of reasoning that tells our turtles something totally false doesn't deserve validation for doing it with slight uncertainty.
      - indrax 5y ago
        You have to weight the validity of the reasoning across all turtle observers through history. If you reject probabilistic reasoning because it sometimes tell you things that are wrong, then you have no way to reason about uncertainty.
        addingnumbers 5y ago
        If your reasoning about uncertainty tells you there's a 99% chance something is false while it's true, what good is it? All the math in the world won't save you from the specious premises in this no-seafarers argument.
        epivosism 5y ago
        "If your reasoning suggests you shouldn't play the lottery, but playing the lottery actually results in you winning, what use is your math?" Well, what matters is expectation. The fact that some people win the lottery doesn't prove that playing the lotto is profitable. In fact it isn't money-profitable. The fact that people sometimes win doesn't change the nature of reality, that even for them, the win is unexpected and playing was negative expectation for them. You seem to be confusing expected value with results. Do you revise your decision process every time you get unlucky? On a meta level, sure, paying attention to unexpected failures is important to look for systematic errors. But randomly getting unlucky on 99% certainties does not automatically disprove your decision method.
RupertEisenhart 5y ago
That is incorrect. Good reasoning can lead to conclusions that are strictly false. For example, when asked to be more granular, the turtle could say 'I reason that there is only a 1 in 10 chance that seafaring civilizations exist'. The existence of seafaring civilizations doesn't make the turtle wrong in this case. If the turtle concluded that 'there can not possibly be any seafaring civilizations, because I don't see any' then you could accuse it of bad reasoning.
- addingnumbers 5y ago
  > If the turtle concluded that 'there can not possibly be any seafaring civilizations, because I don't see any' The hypothetical turtle did exactly that, loyally following suit with the commenter who I replied to.

Since we know the conclusion to be false, any reasoning that would support this hypothetical turtle's conclusion that no seafarers existed in 1450 is inarguably an example of bad reasoning.

gpm 5y ago

No, because the turtle is concluding that it's likely false, not definitely false. There happens to be a cosmic coincidence working against the turtle, but that doesn't mean that it was bad reasoning to conclude that the cosmic coincidence was very unlikely.

addingnumbers 5y ago
The turtle is saying with certainty, not likelihood, that no seafarers exist, analogous with the explicit conclusion (3) in the top level comment
- gpm 5y ago
  People are lazy when they speak, it's best to understand basically every claim as probabilistic (and meaning "almost certainly") even when it isn't stated as such. Certainly no-one would make the claim that "there are (definitely) no aliens in the galaxy" when we can't disprove the idea that aliens traveling at the speed of light just reached the galaxy (with our current understanding of physics). That doesn't mean you can't make the claim "there are (almost definitely) no aliens in the galaxy (because I just created the most amazing telescope ever and looked at every particle of matter in the galaxy and there were no aliens there)". The principle of charity demands that understand the bare claim that "there are no aliens in the galaxy" to mean something that is plausible, such as "there are almost certainly no aliens in the galaxy".
  - addingnumbers 5y ago
    A line of reasoning that tells our turtles something totally false doesn't deserve validation for doing it with slight uncertainty.
    - indrax 5y ago
      You have to weight the validity of the reasoning across all turtle observers through history. If you reject probabilistic reasoning because it sometimes tell you things that are wrong, then you have no way to reason about uncertainty.
      - addingnumbers 5y ago
        If your reasoning about uncertainty tells you there's a 99% chance something is false while it's true, what good is it? All the math in the world won't save you from the specious premises in this no-seafarers argument.
        epivosism 5y ago
        "If your reasoning suggests you shouldn't play the lottery, but playing the lottery actually results in you winning, what use is your math?" Well, what matters is expectation. The fact that some people win the lottery doesn't prove that playing the lotto is profitable. In fact it isn't money-profitable. The fact that people sometimes win doesn't change the nature of reality, that even for them, the win is unexpected and playing was negative expectation for them. You seem to be confusing expected value with results. Do you revise your decision process every time you get unlucky? On a meta level, sure, paying attention to unexpected failures is important to look for systematic errors. But randomly getting unlucky on 99% certainties does not automatically disprove your decision method.

RupertEisenhart 5y ago

That is incorrect. Good reasoning can lead to conclusions that are strictly false. For example, when asked to be more granular, the turtle could say 'I reason that there is only a 1 in 10 chance that seafaring civilizations exist'. The existence of seafaring civilizations doesn't make the turtle wrong in this case. If the turtle concluded that 'there can not possibly be any seafaring civilizations, because I don't see any' then you could accuse it of bad reasoning.

addingnumbers 5y ago
> If the turtle concluded that 'there can not possibly be any seafaring civilizations, because I don't see any' The hypothetical turtle did exactly that, loyally following suit with the commenter who I replied to.