Since I first saw Philosophical Majoritarism, my intuition was very strongly against it, though arguments looked valid. I think I finally understood what was the case. It wasn’t that I thought arguments are wrong or conclusion is wrong. Problem that I thought that then opinions will not be Truly Part Of You. And you either will need to learn others opinions good enough that you will be able to agree or disagree purely on object level reasons, or you will not understand the position good enough to properly apply it.
(I can’t come up with a good example from the top of my head, but I suspect that giving some example is necessary, because of that same Truly Part Of You and Double Illusion Of Transparency)
So I can imagine a religious person who successfully uses PhM, properly notices that his god is not special from all the other, that he doesn’t believe in most of the gods, that most of the people don’t believe in his any more than in fairytales. And then stops believing in god. And god is morality, if there is no god, there is no morality. And...
I don’t want to support the idea of making two errors which will compensate each other, but the Valley Of Bad Rationality certainly exists. The ideas of different memspaces aren’t automatically compatible. And believing in views because of non object level reasons will easily become using techniques which you don’t actually understand/appreciate.
Or other way to say that, it’s not like I think that you need sometimes compensate one error by… error, just different. It’s more like I think that not only words in text, but ideas in mind too, have not only morpheme based meaning of assembly of their internal parts, but also semantic meaning of in which environment they were included.
Another example is that as a scientist, you may say that the sky is not actually blue, not more than a mirror is green. And he will be more right than a child who thinks just that the sky is blue. But if a child will try to follow more true statement of physicist, which this child doesn’t know well enough to agree, then this child will act much wronger than before.
There is no tradeoff. You can maintain both your knowledge of prevaling consensus and your own understanding, use either where appropriate, and be motivated to develop them in different ways, from different sources, somewhat independently.
It’s good to be aware even of false beliefs held by real people (with their intended meaning grasped correctly rather than lampooned), since the phenomenon of these people believing those things is also part of the real world. Informed consensus is more useful than that, with all the caveats.
I am not sure how to say… Yeah, it’s a good idea to know what people think. But how to act from that? It’s obvious to me how to act from your own belief “sky is blue” or from replacing it into literally “sky is not blue”. But I still have no idea how to act from “I think that sky is blue because it looks like that, but physics who know better say ‘sky is not actually blue’”.
And by my own experience I noticed that all tries to follow others people advices which contradict my own understanding, end up horribly. Because if I can’t see why they aren’t object level wrong, I can’t perform them in the proper way meant by others. And even worse, then I can’t even learn about what had gone wrongly, in difference with following my own thoughts.
And when I actually succeed to understand it for proper performing, I also stop to disagree with others opinion.
Mostly what I inferred from that is that you can’t even truly disagree with somebody if you can’t understand what he thought, not just what he said. (which contradicted to my principle of not trying to guess people thoughts, because you don’t have access to their thoughts, only to their words)
Since I first saw Philosophical Majoritarism, my intuition was very strongly against it, though arguments looked valid. I think I finally understood what was the case. It wasn’t that I thought arguments are wrong or conclusion is wrong. Problem that I thought that then opinions will not be Truly Part Of You. And you either will need to learn others opinions good enough that you will be able to agree or disagree purely on object level reasons, or you will not understand the position good enough to properly apply it.
(I can’t come up with a good example from the top of my head, but I suspect that giving some example is necessary, because of that same Truly Part Of You and Double Illusion Of Transparency)
So I can imagine a religious person who successfully uses PhM, properly notices that his god is not special from all the other, that he doesn’t believe in most of the gods, that most of the people don’t believe in his any more than in fairytales. And then stops believing in god. And god is morality, if there is no god, there is no morality. And...
I don’t want to support the idea of making two errors which will compensate each other, but the Valley Of Bad Rationality certainly exists. The ideas of different memspaces aren’t automatically compatible. And believing in views because of non object level reasons will easily become using techniques which you don’t actually understand/appreciate.
Or other way to say that, it’s not like I think that you need sometimes compensate one error by… error, just different. It’s more like I think that not only words in text, but ideas in mind too, have not only morpheme based meaning of assembly of their internal parts, but also semantic meaning of in which environment they were included.
Another example is that as a scientist, you may say that the sky is not actually blue, not more than a mirror is green. And he will be more right than a child who thinks just that the sky is blue. But if a child will try to follow more true statement of physicist, which this child doesn’t know well enough to agree, then this child will act much wronger than before.
There is no tradeoff. You can maintain both your knowledge of prevaling consensus and your own understanding, use either where appropriate, and be motivated to develop them in different ways, from different sources, somewhat independently.
It’s good to be aware even of false beliefs held by real people (with their intended meaning grasped correctly rather than lampooned), since the phenomenon of these people believing those things is also part of the real world. Informed consensus is more useful than that, with all the caveats.
I am not sure how to say… Yeah, it’s a good idea to know what people think. But how to act from that? It’s obvious to me how to act from your own belief “sky is blue” or from replacing it into literally “sky is not blue”. But I still have no idea how to act from “I think that sky is blue because it looks like that, but physics who know better say ‘sky is not actually blue’”.
And by my own experience I noticed that all tries to follow others people advices which contradict my own understanding, end up horribly. Because if I can’t see why they aren’t object level wrong, I can’t perform them in the proper way meant by others. And even worse, then I can’t even learn about what had gone wrongly, in difference with following my own thoughts.
And when I actually succeed to understand it for proper performing, I also stop to disagree with others opinion.
Mostly what I inferred from that is that you can’t even truly disagree with somebody if you can’t understand what he thought, not just what he said. (which contradicted to my principle of not trying to guess people thoughts, because you don’t have access to their thoughts, only to their words)