Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Münchhausen trilemma

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#31

Post by pron »

blueprint wrote: post #27
pron wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but the whole point of the trilemma is that absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible, not that we cannot axiomatically accept the utility of partial, approximate knowledge. Also, while abductive reasoning is (a bit) different from inductive reasoning, they have the same underlying epistemological justification. In discussions of epistemology you often don't see abductive reasoning mentioned, as i…

Well if absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible are you able to suggest a truth that could even be considered absolute? If not, bit of dangerous statement, isn't it?

That's the trilemma.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#32

Post by md224 »

It recently occurred to me that epistemology is essentially a hermeneutics of experience, which is to say: all of our non-trivial beliefs about ourselves and the world (including this very statement) are simply interpretations of what we perceive. This realization, while surely obvious to some, was very clarifying for me.

Edit: Judging from the downvote I got, I guess some people don't share my interpretation of epistemology. C'est la vie.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#33

Post by Sangermaine »

the_af wrote: post #30
jrog wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a different set of axioms. Axiomatic differences can lead of vastly different conclusions, both with sound logical reasoning. Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusi…

> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. Do note that often in this kind of controversial topics, the axioms are not held consistently by a given side (or the actual axioms are hidden and differ from the stated ones). For example, "it's always wrong to end a life [except when bombing abortion clinics | except when…

Well, the real mistake is believing that people think or behave in a consistent manner. All attempts at "rational" debate starts from this flawed premise, and thus always fails.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#34

Post by peterwwillis »

raphael_l wrote: post #22
boxy310 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it simply fascinating when I learned that Blue Wildebeests are born knowing how to stand within minutes of their birth, and within a day can outrun adult hyenas: "Extremely precocial species are called "superprecocial". Examples are the Megapode birds, which have full flight feathers and which, in some species, can fly on the same day they hatch from their eggs. Another example is the Blue Wildebeest, whose c…

Very interesting concept, thanks for providing this link! We could also apply this terminology to startups: precocial startups are profitable and self-sustaining soon after their launch. Superprecocial startups would be so right away.

Aside from drug dealers there are few superprecocial businesses. The only reliable way to form such a business is to provide something everyone needs and nobody has, like water in the desert.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#35

Post by [deleted] »

jrog wrote: post #25
humanrebar wrote: post #2

In the situations where Münchhausen trilemma is applicable, people tend to use a version of abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or explanation that fits the known facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning It's important to keep the Münchhausen trilemma and abductive reasoning in mind when discussion controversial issues where one side feels they have proof and the other side is…

Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a different set of axioms. Axiomatic differences can lead of vastly different conclusions, both with sound logical reasoning. Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusi…

[deleted]

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#38

Post by blueprint »

pron wrote: post #31
blueprint wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible are you able to suggest a truth that could even be considered absolute? If not, bit of dangerous statement, isn't it?

That's the trilemma.

Uh, no it's not. You start with a statement then you go about trying to analyze it....? Ok.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#40

Post by bmm6o »

the_af wrote: post #30
jrog wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a different set of axioms. Axiomatic differences can lead of vastly different conclusions, both with sound logical reasoning. Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusi…

> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. Do note that often in this kind of controversial topics, the axioms are not held consistently by a given side (or the actual axioms are hidden and differ from the stated ones). For example, "it's always wrong to end a life [except when bombing abortion clinics | except when…

It's not even that they aren't held consistently. Honestly, nobody (outside of philosophy papers) lists out their axioms and derives beliefs. They have beliefs and "reverse engineer" the supporting axioms, and don't particularly care if the axioms required for one position conflict with the ones required for another.
Post reply on HN