Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality

From: Marc Geddes (marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz)
Date: Thu Mar 17 2005 - 00:08:59 MST

>No! No, I do not prefer consistency, all else equal.
>I prefer *only*
>that my map match the territory. If I have two maps
>that are unrelated
>to the territory, I care not whether they are
>consistent. Within the
>Way, fit to the territory is the *only* thing that I
>am permitted to
>consider.

According to the coherence theory of truth as I
interpret it, the greater the number of pieces of
knowledge making up a theory that is consistent, the
higher the probability that the theory corresponds to
the territory. Therefore consistency is surely one
critera for judging the worth of a theory.

Now is a good time for me to state my 'Fundamental
Theorem Of Inference' ;) Here it is:

Explanation = Coherence x Causation

So I think a good theory (explanation) of something
requires the interaction of two major aspects:

(1) Show how the something being explained is
consistent and fits with the framework of other
knowledge (so there is a unification of knowledge -
showing how the something connects with the rest of
reality)

(2) Provide a causal explanation (so showing where
the something came from and where it's going).

The Way consists of the *interaction* of (1) and (2).
I think both (1) and (2) depend on each other and
therefore both are required to obtain the Way.

```---
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.
-Emily Dickinson
'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
---
Please visit my web-site:
Mathematics, Mind and Matter
http://www.riemannai.org/
---
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT