Comments on: On Celestial Teapots and FSMs http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Micha Ghertner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20470 Micha Ghertner Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:24:12 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20470 Hence their illegitimacy. Hence their illegitimacy.

]]> By: Micha Ghertner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20469 Micha Ghertner Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:24:12 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20469 Hence their illegitimacy. Hence their illegitimacy.

]]> By: Michael Drake http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20468 Michael Drake Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:49:02 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20468 I touch on the socio-epistemological issue in both the post update and <a href="http://www.strangedoctrines.com/2009/01/ross-douthats-universal-counteranalogizer.html#comment-6a00d8341c8b8a53ef01116836c120970c" rel="nofollow">this comment</a>. I touch on the socio-epistemological issue in both the post update and this comment.

]]> By: Pithlord http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20467 Pithlord Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:45:21 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20467 The fact that human beings aren't Bayesian updaters (or at least not ideal Bayesian updaters) does not imply that Bayesian updaters would ignore what human beings think. Most of what human beings think is true most of the time, and if all the ideal Bayesian updater knew about p is that most people thought it was true, then she would update in a positive direction. <br><br>If, instead, you thought the opinions of everyone around you were of zero or negative significance, then you wouldn't be a smart non-conformist: you'd be someone who could never find the bathroom or lunch. The fact that human beings aren't Bayesian updaters (or at least not ideal Bayesian updaters) does not imply that Bayesian updaters would ignore what human beings think. Most of what human beings think is true most of the time, and if all the ideal Bayesian updater knew about p is that most people thought it was true, then she would update in a positive direction.

If, instead, you thought the opinions of everyone around you were of zero or negative significance, then you wouldn't be a smart non-conformist: you'd be someone who could never find the bathroom or lunch.

]]> By: Neel Krishnaswami http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20466 Neel Krishnaswami Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:02:56 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20466 You can rationally appeal to popularity if you know that the populace in question is rational, because then you know their beliefs are rationally-founded. But actually, we know that actual human beings <em>aren't</em> Bayesian updaters, which means that we can't validly appeal to popularity. You can rationally appeal to popularity if you know that the populace in question is rational, because then you know their beliefs are rationally-founded. But actually, we know that actual human beings aren't Bayesian updaters, which means that we can't validly appeal to popularity.

]]> By: Zvi Mowshowitz http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20465 Zvi Mowshowitz Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:50:01 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20465 On the contrary, that's what to bet against. That's how you get good odds! On the contrary, that's what to bet against. That's how you get good odds!

]]> By: webgrrl http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20464 webgrrl Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:43:46 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20464 Aaarggh! Gotta be Hansonian here - look people believe this weird costly religious stuff to show they are good tribe members who want to be nice and want you to be nice too. Those other ugly nasty Teapot monkeys over there have never been blessed by His Noodly Appendage! Watch how I libate truffle sauce in my devotion to The All-Seeing Meatball Eyes. Trust me, be my allies, have my kids, and I promise to throw stones at those out-group infidel primates with polluted foreign genes. Aaarggh! Gotta be Hansonian here – look people believe this weird costly religious stuff to show they are good tribe members who want to be nice and want you to be nice too. Those other ugly nasty Teapot monkeys over there have never been blessed by His Noodly Appendage! Watch how I libate truffle sauce in my devotion to The All-Seeing Meatball Eyes. Trust me, be my allies, have my kids, and I promise to throw stones at those out-group infidel primates with polluted foreign genes.

]]> By: Leon http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20463 Leon Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:21:07 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20463 Shorter: a less adolescent, less condascending, less facile and just as persuasive argument against the existence of the Christian god is the comparison with e.g. Zeus. Shorter: a less adolescent, less condascending, less facile and just as persuasive argument against the existence of the Christian god is the comparison with e.g. Zeus.

]]> By: Leon http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20462 Leon Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:09:54 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20462 *which they trust. *which they trust.

]]> By: Leon http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20461 Leon Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:09:03 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20461 Another Ben, your example about the geocentric model actually works the other way.<br><br>The vast majority of people haven't examined the skies very closely. They believe the model is false because they've heard from a whole bunch of people that it's been disproven by the methods of science, which they distrust. Another Ben, your example about the geocentric model actually works the other way.

The vast majority of people haven't examined the skies very closely. They believe the model is false because they've heard from a whole bunch of people that it's been disproven by the methods of science, which they distrust.

]]> By: Jayson Virissimo http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20460 Jayson Virissimo Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:52:03 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20460 You may laugh, but almost everyone relies on this kind of reasoning. In fact, our democratic political institutions depend on this kind of reasoning for their legitimacy. You may laugh, but almost everyone relies on this kind of reasoning. In fact, our democratic political institutions depend on this kind of reasoning for their legitimacy.

]]> By: Another Ben http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20459 Another Ben Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:43:20 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20459 Only in the absence of all other data. Only in the absence of all other data.

]]> By: Pithlord http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20458 Pithlord Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:35:09 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20458 You are right that just because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. But that's the way to bet. You are right that just because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. But that's the way to bet.

]]> By: Another Ben http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20457 Another Ben Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:46:10 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20457 Doesn't that rely upon not examining the evidence for the existence of the supernatural? It is one thing to say that everyone believes that X causes Y or simply X, but upon examination, if one does not find X, then it is not rational to believe it anymore provided one has robust evidence for it. The geocentric model of the universe seems plausible if one does not examine the skies very closely, but just because people once believed it does not make it true. Doesn't that rely upon not examining the evidence for the existence of the supernatural? It is one thing to say that everyone believes that X causes Y or simply X, but upon examination, if one does not find X, then it is not rational to believe it anymore provided one has robust evidence for it. The geocentric model of the universe seems plausible if one does not examine the skies very closely, but just because people once believed it does not make it true.

]]> By: Pithlord http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/29/on-celestial-teapots-and-fsms/#comment-20456 Pithlord Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:57:24 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2650#comment-20456 Like most Internet fallacies, the "Argumentum ad populum" isn't a fallacy if it is interpreted in a Bayesian way, rather than in an Aristotlean way. The fact is that all rationally-ignorant people rationally rely on the fact that most people believe X as evidence for X. If you didn't do this, you would starve to death. So Drake's argument, if not glib, is wrong. Like most Internet fallacies, the “Argumentum ad populum” isn't a fallacy if it is interpreted in a Bayesian way, rather than in an Aristotlean way. The fact is that all rationally-ignorant people rationally rely on the fact that most people believe X as evidence for X. If you didn't do this, you would starve to death. So Drake's argument, if not glib, is wrong.

]]>