Thanks Magnus â Iâm not sure I understand your objection or which specific language choices in the posts seem too strong, yet.
nevertheless holding something weaker, like that some heuristics are slightly better than others in expectation, or that we in general can do meaningfully (or even just marginally) better than nothing
I should probably have made it more clear that this isnât an objection, and maybe not even much of a substantive point, but more just a remark on something that stood out to me while reading, namely that the views critiqued often seemed phrased in much stronger terms than what people with competing views would necessarily agree with.
Some of the examples that stood out were those I included in quotes above.
Some of the examples that stood out were those I included in quotes above
Iâm still confused, sorry. E.g., âreliablyâ doesnât mean âperfectlyâ, and my hope was that the surrounding context was enough to make clear what I mean. Iâm not sure which alternative phrasings youâd recommend (or why you think thereâs a risk of misrepresentation of othersâ views when Iâve precisely spelled out, e.g., the six âstandard approachesâ in question).
Right, I guess within my intuitive conceptions and associations, itâs more like a spectrum, with âperfectlyâ being the very strongest, âreliablyâ being somewhere in between, and something like âthe tiniest bit better than chanceâ being the weakest. I suspect many would endorse ~the latter formulation without endorsing anything quite as strong as âreliablyâ.
To be clear, I donât think this is a matter of outright misrepresenting othersâ views; I just suspect that many, maybe most, of those who hold a contrary view would say that those specific descriptions are not particularly faithful or accurate framings of their views, even if certain sections do frame and address things differently.
Thanks Magnus â Iâm not sure I understand your objection or which specific language choices in the posts seem too strong, yet.
Can you say a bit more about why you think I havenât adequately responded to this perspective, in the sequence? (âDegrees of imprecisionâ, âThe âbetter than chanceâ argumentâ, and my response to âMeta-extrapolationâ explain why I donât think âX is slightly better than Y in expectationâ makes sense here.)
I should probably have made it more clear that this isnât an objection, and maybe not even much of a substantive point, but more just a remark on something that stood out to me while reading, namely that the views critiqued often seemed phrased in much stronger terms than what people with competing views would necessarily agree with.
Some of the examples that stood out were those I included in quotes above.
Iâm still confused, sorry. E.g., âreliablyâ doesnât mean âperfectlyâ, and my hope was that the surrounding context was enough to make clear what I mean. Iâm not sure which alternative phrasings youâd recommend (or why you think thereâs a risk of misrepresentation of othersâ views when Iâve precisely spelled out, e.g., the six âstandard approachesâ in question).
Right, I guess within my intuitive conceptions and associations, itâs more like a spectrum, with âperfectlyâ being the very strongest, âreliablyâ being somewhere in between, and something like âthe tiniest bit better than chanceâ being the weakest. I suspect many would endorse ~the latter formulation without endorsing anything quite as strong as âreliablyâ.
To be clear, I donât think this is a matter of outright misrepresenting othersâ views; I just suspect that many, maybe most, of those who hold a contrary view would say that those specific descriptions are not particularly faithful or accurate framings of their views, even if certain sections do frame and address things differently.