The propensity for mistaking belief for facts certainly take daily hits as a software developer. "How come this simple thing isn't working? I thought of everything didn't I?". After a while you are forced to realize that belief isn't the same as reality. It seems insights like this don't easily translate into other domains though, like relationships, dearly held political views etc. We prefer to think of them as base…
After a while you are forced to realize that belief isn't the same as reality. This is what the technique of Rubber Duck Debugging helps with. I wonder if you could translate it to other domains?
A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
71–80 of 185 posts
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, why not write them down for us?!
As if they're difficult to derive on one's own? You believe X has cancer because he has the symptoms and you can see an offending black spot on their X-ray. The lab results say the black spot was just a cyst but X indeed has cancer in the same organ.
#1 because one of the reasons for your believing X has cancer is that "he has the symptoms", which (if I'm understanding your example correctly) is in fact a consequence of the cancer he actually has; so, at least to some extent, your belief is causally connected to the true thing you believe in just the way it's not meant to be in a Gettier case.
#2 because (so far as I know) it's not at all common to have both (a) cancer in an organ that doesn't show up in your X-ray (or MRI or whatever) and (b) a cyst in the same organ that looks just like cancer in the X-ray/MRI/whatever. I'm not a doctor, but my guess is that this is very unusual indeed.
So this isn't a very convincing example of how clear-cut Gettier cases aren't rare: it's neither a clear-cut Gettier case nor something that happens at all often.
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#73In the opening match, Kota Ibushi suffered a concussion. Some doctors came out, carried him out on a stretcher, and took him to the back. As it turns out, this was all planned. The doctors were fake, and this course of events was determined ahead of time. But coincidentally, Ibushi _actually_ suffered a real-life concussion in the match.
Wrestling always has an interesting relationship with reality.
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#74https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_and_Necessity
It investigates how we assign names to things and what those names mean and how we can reason about them.
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#75I actually disagree with the Gettier thought experiment and don’t believe it demonstrates anything interesting. When you see the cow (but it’s really a convincing model), then in your mind, there should be some probability assigned to a variety of outcomes. The main one would be a cow, another one might be that you’re hallucinating, and so on down the list, and somewhere the outcome of cow-like model would be there.…
And it leads to a funny thing. You saw the model of a cow, and it make you believe that there is a cow in the field and that you saw a cow. Then you could find a heap of poo, and you will strengten your beliefs futher. You might find a lot of evidence and it all will be explained under assumption that you saw a cow. And this evidence will strenghten your belief that you will be licked in the face, when you come near the cow.
But you didn't saw the cow that made this heap of poo. The real cow is pitch black, with a horns of gigantic size and they are really sharp. The real cow has red glowing eyes and it is going to kill you. But before you see the real cow itself, all the evidence that would point that there is a cow would also reinforce the idea of soft tempered black and white cow. The longer you manage to keep youself oblivious to real cow traits, the more surprised you will become when you find the real cow.
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#76He is wrong and this is not a gettier in any way. "The code change had caused the emails to stop delivering" is not a JTB, because it is not true. Rather it was that the email server went down.
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#77I think it helps to look at the mind as a probabilistic survival engine than some truth engine. If there appears to be a cow in a random field the odds are extremely low that someone put a papier mache cow there. If there’s something that has 50 % chance of being a snake you panic and run because that’s a 50 % chance of dying. In the case of the authors bug yes the change he introduced had a good probability of being…
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#78I actually disagree with the Gettier thought experiment and don’t believe it demonstrates anything interesting. When you see the cow (but it’s really a convincing model), then in your mind, there should be some probability assigned to a variety of outcomes. The main one would be a cow, another one might be that you’re hallucinating, and so on down the list, and somewhere the outcome of cow-like model would be there.…
You're replacing the model it was criticizing with a different model and then saying that it doesn't say anything interesting about your model, so it's not interesting. It's not an argument that knowledge isn't possible, it was an argument against the traditional definition of knowledge as it was almost universally understood at the time.
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an epistemology class once I said to the lecturer "I don't know anything." He said "Don't you know your name?"
Not good enough, point to that which knows. Where is it? Who knows it? If there is a knower to that, where is it.. Keep going with this investigation and realize there is no knower, only knowing. Eastern philosophy has nailed this thousands of years ago and we westerners are up to this day totally in the dark. We actively treat the I as a concrete object that really exists as an entity. It does not hold any closer ex…
That's just part of how our language works. It doesn't seem to matter whether I am a "concrete object" or some swirly pattern of becoming or indeed even an illusion! The English word "I" does not refer to an eternal soul or "atman."
If you stare long enough at an ice cream you'll have the marvelous insight that in reality there is no concrete ice cream entity, not least because it melts. Yet people don't go around saying "wake up, there are no ice creams!" Why is that?
Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers
#80> I could have had a JTB that the code change had caused the emails to stop delivering, but still we wouldn’t want to say I “knew” this was the cause, because it was actually the service outage that was directly responsible. He is wrong and this is not a gettier in any way. "The code change had caused the emails to stop delivering" is not a JTB, because it is not true. Rather it was that the email server went down.