4 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. I do think that if you in fact have a losing ticket, then you know it. And if you have winning ticket then you can justifiably, but incorrectly, think you know you have a losing ticket.I think the only good way to deny knowledge in lottery cases is to demand infallibility from knowledge, which than loses us pretty much all ordinary knowledge.

      This is exactly my problem with "knowledge" and it's inherent vagueness. I think it's far better for us all to admit that we have virtually no knowledge and instead only have beliefs of varying strengths.

  2. Oct 2021
    1. This is a nice introduction to some issues of concern to me. For instance, the absence of pain is good - but why is it good? The empirical reason for this is that it satisfies evolved instinct. So again, what is good tracks to what is natural. But the naturalistic fallacy undermines that. And most importantly, there is no known scientific connection between evolution and instinct on the one hand, and "good" on the other. My answer is: morality is not natural, it is an artifice of humanity. And since it's an artifice, we can make it whatever we want.

  3. Sep 2021
    1. I've got serious reservations about this Gerst fellow. His answers are too vague and contain too many bald assertions. The form of his answers fits what I've noticed to be a "style" of regressives seeking to promote obsolete traditions and social norms.

      Granted, it's difficult to present precise information in "interview format" articles like this one, but education is too important to get get wrong - again.

    1. If the words of legendary samurai Miyamoto Musashi:“If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything.”

      This is analogous to how I see systems everywhere, having studied them for a couple of decades.