If I came up with or learned something interesting or important, and also realized that some scholar or school of thought from the past or present had a few central conclusions or beliefs that seem sort of similar in some way, but believed them all for the wrong reasons—specifically ones absolutely insane by my own epistemic standards—I would not care. I would move on, and consider that tradition utterly useless and uninteresting.
If I found a school of thought that seemed to come to correct conclusion unusually often but “believed them all for the wrong reasons—specifically ones absolutely insane by my own epistemic standards”, I’d take that as evidence that there is something to their reasons that I’m missing.
So you’re defining the sequence of letters starting with “G”, next being “o”, and ending with “d” as “the ideal decision theory”? Is this a common meaning?
Actually, yes. Specifically the tendency in Catholic thought to equate God with Plato’s Form of the Good.
If I found a school of thought that seemed to come to correct conclusion unusually often but “believed them all for the wrong reasons—specifically ones absolutely insane by my own epistemic standards”, I’d take that as evidence that there is something to their reasons that I’m missing.
You’re absolutely right, but you’re stipulating the further condition that they come to the correct conclusions “unusually often”. I on the other hand was talking about a situation where they just happen to have a few of the same conclusions, and those conclusions just so happen to be central to their worldview.
I didn’t get the feeling that Will thought that Catholicism was correct an unusually amount of time. I was under the impression that he (like many others before him) is simply trying his hardest to use some of the theistic terminology and identify as a theist, despite his science background.
Actually, yes. Specifically the tendency in Catholic thought to equate God with Plato’s Form of the Good
I just read that article, but I couldn’t parse anything, nor did I see any relation to decision theory. I’m left utterly confused.
If I found a school of thought that seemed to come to correct conclusion unusually often but “believed them all for the wrong reasons—specifically ones absolutely insane by my own epistemic standards”, I’d take that as evidence that there is something to their reasons that I’m missing.
Actually, yes. Specifically the tendency in Catholic thought to equate God with Plato’s Form of the Good.
You’re absolutely right, but you’re stipulating the further condition that they come to the correct conclusions “unusually often”. I on the other hand was talking about a situation where they just happen to have a few of the same conclusions, and those conclusions just so happen to be central to their worldview.
I didn’t get the feeling that Will thought that Catholicism was correct an unusually amount of time. I was under the impression that he (like many others before him) is simply trying his hardest to use some of the theistic terminology and identify as a theist, despite his science background.
I just read that article, but I couldn’t parse anything, nor did I see any relation to decision theory. I’m left utterly confused.