As I said in response to OrphanWilde, maybe. In that particular instance, the inexactness of his language means it is possible Eliezer meant to use the term under the narrow confines of his example, but several commenters on that post seemed to be using my definition, but it’s a largely irrelevant issue as there can be no doubt that Eliezer favors inductive inference, and that the paper favors hypothetico-deductivism. There is a clear dispute here; they even said so in the video. Why is everyone so interested in nitpicking semantics when the relevant issue is well understood? The semantics of rationalization won’t change that.
Why is everyone so interested in nitpicking semantics
This is not nitpicking semantics. This is looking at the actual things that are not merely being named by the words, but described at length in the cited sources: selecting only the evidence one likes, versus accepting the evidence whether one likes it or not. When Eliezer talks about rationalisation, he is not talking about hypothetico-deductivism. Gelman and Shalizi talk about hypothetico-deductivism; they do not talk about rationalisation. Their respective definitions do not at all “match up closely”.
In that particular instance, the inexactness of his language means it is possible Eliezer meant to use the term under the narrow confines of his example,
There is nothing inexact about his language, and his example is not a narrow confine.
but several commenters on that post seemed to be using my definition
Your definition bears no relationship to anyone else’s use of the word “rationalisation”. No definition of the word includes the idea of testing a hypothesis; all definitions relevant to the present context include the idea of fitting the evidence to the hypothesis.
there can be no doubt that Eliezer favors inductive inference, and that the paper favors hypothetico-deductivism.
Indeed so, and he has had some things to say about hypothetico-deductivism. But not in the cited article, and he does not call it rationalisation.
As much fun as this argument is, if you think there’s a better source that better describes Eliezer’s views on hypothetico-deductivism, you could just cite it instead.
I am only aware that he has written on the matter somewhere. The article cited is not a worse source for his views on the subject, it is not a source at all. Its subject matter is completely different and it does not belong in the discussion.
As I said in response to OrphanWilde, maybe. In that particular instance, the inexactness of his language means it is possible Eliezer meant to use the term under the narrow confines of his example, but several commenters on that post seemed to be using my definition, but it’s a largely irrelevant issue as there can be no doubt that Eliezer favors inductive inference, and that the paper favors hypothetico-deductivism. There is a clear dispute here; they even said so in the video. Why is everyone so interested in nitpicking semantics when the relevant issue is well understood? The semantics of rationalization won’t change that.
This is not nitpicking semantics. This is looking at the actual things that are not merely being named by the words, but described at length in the cited sources: selecting only the evidence one likes, versus accepting the evidence whether one likes it or not. When Eliezer talks about rationalisation, he is not talking about hypothetico-deductivism. Gelman and Shalizi talk about hypothetico-deductivism; they do not talk about rationalisation. Their respective definitions do not at all “match up closely”.
There is nothing inexact about his language, and his example is not a narrow confine.
Your definition bears no relationship to anyone else’s use of the word “rationalisation”. No definition of the word includes the idea of testing a hypothesis; all definitions relevant to the present context include the idea of fitting the evidence to the hypothesis.
Indeed so, and he has had some things to say about hypothetico-deductivism. But not in the cited article, and he does not call it rationalisation.
As much fun as this argument is, if you think there’s a better source that better describes Eliezer’s views on hypothetico-deductivism, you could just cite it instead.
I am only aware that he has written on the matter somewhere. The article cited is not a worse source for his views on the subject, it is not a source at all. Its subject matter is completely different and it does not belong in the discussion.