Hm. After reading that, my brain’s first impression was that these are straightforward questions that I should be able to easily answer. However, I’m having more difficulty answering them than I thought I would. I’m not sure what the implications of this are.
How do you know that you understand those concepts?
Part of the reason is because I’ve “discovered it for myself”. I’m 22 and I don’t remember ever not understanding reductionism. I’m remembering having a good understanding of it back in middle school (although a) I know that memory isn’t always trustworthy, and b) I definitely didn’t know the lingo). Another part of the reason is because the stuff I thought before reading LW was very much mirrored in the Reductionism sequence. So the fact that it’s so well accepted here is outside view evidence that the ideas of reductionism are true.
But the ultimate reason is just because I’ve observed that lower level maps make more accurate predictions than higher level ones. I’m actually having a hard time coming up with things that I have actually observed, but the clearest example I could think of off the top of my head is that scientists have found that in terms of what makes the most accurate predictions, physics > chemistry > biology.
What does it means for you to say that you understand them?
Well, reductionism really isn’t really a single concept, and so it doesn’t really make sense to say that “I understand reductionism”. But what I mean is that I think I understand a) the core concepts quite well and b) a reasonably large proportion of what there is to know about it.
it doesn’t really make sense to say that “I understand reductionism”.
How much do you really understand if you say something about the topic that you believe not to make sense?
I’m remembering having a good understanding of it back in middle school (although a) I know that memory isn’t always trustworthy, and b) I definitely didn’t know the lingo).
Not having updated one’s beliefs on a topic since middle school doesn’t suggest deep understanding.
When interpreted literally, “I understand reductionism” might not make sense, but I expect that people won’t interpret it completely literally and would know what I mean.
If I implied that I haven’t updated since middle school, I didn’t mean to do that. I have in fact updated quite a bit.
Hm. After reading that, my brain’s first impression was that these are straightforward questions that I should be able to easily answer. However, I’m having more difficulty answering them than I thought I would. I’m not sure what the implications of this are.
Part of the reason is because I’ve “discovered it for myself”. I’m 22 and I don’t remember ever not understanding reductionism. I’m remembering having a good understanding of it back in middle school (although a) I know that memory isn’t always trustworthy, and b) I definitely didn’t know the lingo). Another part of the reason is because the stuff I thought before reading LW was very much mirrored in the Reductionism sequence. So the fact that it’s so well accepted here is outside view evidence that the ideas of reductionism are true.
But the ultimate reason is just because I’ve observed that lower level maps make more accurate predictions than higher level ones. I’m actually having a hard time coming up with things that I have actually observed, but the clearest example I could think of off the top of my head is that scientists have found that in terms of what makes the most accurate predictions, physics > chemistry > biology.
Well, reductionism really isn’t really a single concept, and so it doesn’t really make sense to say that “I understand reductionism”. But what I mean is that I think I understand a) the core concepts quite well and b) a reasonably large proportion of what there is to know about it.
How much do you really understand if you say something about the topic that you believe not to make sense?
Not having updated one’s beliefs on a topic since middle school doesn’t suggest deep understanding.
When interpreted literally, “I understand reductionism” might not make sense, but I expect that people won’t interpret it completely literally and would know what I mean.
If I implied that I haven’t updated since middle school, I didn’t mean to do that. I have in fact updated quite a bit.