The dichotomy is a false dilemma; having quantitative degrees of certainty (which change with the evidence) is a much better solution than either pretending you’re completely certain or completely uncertain. The Map and Territory sequence is a good exposition of this.
But it seems to me that the article does not promote obviating the need for knowledge, nor leveles of certainty in putting it to use. What I read is that it endeavors to deflate the psychological effect of having the word, jus the word, around, with a substitute word that has built in humor. Thus, it may be more difficult for a terrorist to blow up a building in the name of veripoop than in the name of truth. I like it. :-)
But what is the best if not confessed ignorance, since heuristic certainty is ruled out?
First, welcome to Less Wrong! (Actually, you too, thre3e!)
The dichotomy is a false dilemma; having quantitative degrees of certainty (which change with the evidence) is a much better solution than either pretending you’re completely certain or completely uncertain. The Map and Territory sequence is a good exposition of this.
But it seems to me that the article does not promote obviating the need for knowledge, nor leveles of certainty in putting it to use. What I read is that it endeavors to deflate the psychological effect of having the word, jus the word, around, with a substitute word that has built in humor. Thus, it may be more difficult for a terrorist to blow up a building in the name of veripoop than in the name of truth. I like it. :-)
That’s what I got out of it. It’s a semi parody. The other half is oh so true. It’s a semi satire. The other half is oh so true.
Dude, if you’re going to make a dozen accounts to talk up your post, you can’t use the same deranged writing style in all of them.