←back to thread

303 points FigurativeVoid | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
orbisvicis ◴[] No.41845194[source]
I'm not sure I see the big deal. Justification is on a scale of 0 to 1, and at 1 you are onmiscient. We live in a complicated world; no one has time to be God so you just accept your 0.5 JTB and move on.

Or for the belief part, well, "it's not a lie if you believe it".

And as for the true bit, let's assume that there really is a cow, but before you can call someone over to verify your JTB, an alien abducts the cow and leaves a crop circle. Now all anyone sees is a paper-mache cow so you appear the fool but did have a true JTB - Schroedinger's JTB. Does it really matter unless you can convince others of that? On the flip side, even if the knowledge is wrong, if everyone agrees it is true, does it even matter?

JTB only exist to highlight bad assumptions, like being on the wrong side of a branch predictor. If you have a 0.9 JTB but get the right answer 0.1 times and don't update you assumptions, then you have a problem. One statue in a field? Not a big deal! *

* Unless it's a murder investigation and you're Sherlock Holmes (a truly powerful branch predictor).

replies(5): >>41845236 #>>41845423 #>>41845590 #>>41846695 #>>41849187 #
ninetyninenine ◴[] No.41845590[source]
You're view is more inline with the philosophy of science which holds nothing an ever be justified.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Karl_Popper

read The problem of induction and demarcation: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Falsifiability

Basically to some it all up because we aren't "omniscient" nothing can in actuallity ever be known.

replies(3): >>41847290 #>>41847398 #>>41848836 #
mistermann ◴[] No.41847398[source]
Is 1=1 disputed in philosophy of science?
replies(1): >>41847760 #
1. orbisvicis ◴[] No.41847760[source]
Probably only inasmuch as 1 is a theoretical framework. While 1*N dollars is nice to have, I'd probably have more dollars without fractional rounding.