I can’t tell whether your epistemology is joking or serious, though; it seems like you’re quite committed to a state of confessed ignorance about many things (which is preferable to one of hubristic certainty, but isn’t the best you can do with your knowledge).
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. :-)
I can’t tell whether your epistemology is joking or serious, though; it seems like you’re quite committed to a state of confessed ignorance about many things (which is preferable to one of hubristic certainty, but isn’t the best you can do with your knowledge).
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.