Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality

From: Marc Geddes (
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

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

(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'
Please visit my web-site:
Mathematics, Mind and Matter
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

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