From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Mar 05 1999 - 07:06:03 MST
Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
> Pragmatism can't help us here, because a logical skeptic can accept all of
> our premises and still disagree with our conclusions. Any proof we provide
> in defense of logic is just a proof; if the question you're trying to
> settle is "Why should I believe proofs?" then hearing a proof on the matter
> probably won't satisfy you.
Why are you asking a *pragmatist* for *proof*? A pragmatist has no more
truck with "proving" things than science itself! Absolute certainty is
the domain of mistaken philosophers.
The argument in favor of logic and reason is by no means certain, but it
is better than anything else. If you try to deny all arguments as
invalid, you wind up with a theory that provides no useful advice, and
thus - however probable - cancels out of decision making. That's all
anyone has to argue.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:15 MST