Münchhausen trilemma
en.wikipedia.org
Münchhausen trilemma
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#2In 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 ignorant or duped. Often the difference is something like whether emergent behavior or a conspiracy feels like a simpler explanation.
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#3In 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…
Seems to be the same principle as Occam's razor [1] or am I missing something?
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#4I wonder why they argue that way, when it seems obvious that you need some common ground to start reasoning at all.
As we all start living in this world without any knowledge, all knowledge has been formed by the things we experience. And therefore, many of us agree to argue based on our (measurable) experiences (e.g. scientists). Others prefer to add beliefs which are wildly subjective (hard to reproduce) and therefore cause a lot of inconsistencies.
But in the end, it always comes down to the point where you need a common set of truths to start an argument. Otherwise there is no point in arguing at all.
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#5In 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…
The validity of abductive/inductive reasoning is itself subject to the trilemma.
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#6In 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…
Seems to be the same principle as Occam's razor [1] or am I missing something? [1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
In spirit, yes. However, it gets more interesting if we try to make Occam's Razor more precise with something like Solomonoff induction, then it get's trickier to decide in practice what "simpler" actually means.
Even if we're able to reduce our competing models to Turing machine implementations, we're only able to calculate their complexity relative to some defined collection of models, which in turn depends on what kind of low-level logical formalism we're using.
In practice, of course, we can't parse out all these formal details for every decision, but I think it's helpful to at least be aware of the inherent problems with naive Occam's Razor.
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#7In 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…
Seems to be the same principle as Occam's razor [1] or am I missing something? [1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Occam's razor is better thought of as a method of choosing between alternative explanations of the same observed phenomena. It suggests choose the one that requires the least unproved theoretical scaffolding to support it. It is not really "accept the simplest explanation" but more like "do not create complex theories unless they explain the facts better than the simple ones."
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#8In 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…
The validity of abductive/inductive reasoning is itself subject to the trilemma.
First, inductive reasoning is different than abductive reasoning.
Second, the goals of abductive reasoning are different than philosophical or mathematical proof. Often we need to make decisions on incomplete information, and it's a philosophy to help one do so.
For example, juries are supposed to make a decision based on a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions would be rare if the standard were incontrovertible truth.
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#9The question "why should claim X be trusted?" indeed runs into infinite regress and has no well-founded answer. But the modified question "why should claim X be trusted by creature Y?" can have a well-founded answer, based on facts about creature Y.
Re: Münchhausen trilemma
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The validity of abductive/inductive reasoning is itself subject to the trilemma.
First, inductive reasoning is different than abductive reasoning. Second, the goals of abductive reasoning are different than philosophical or mathematical proof. Often we need to make decisions on incomplete information, and it's a philosophy to help one do so. For example, juries are supposed to make a decision based on a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions would be rare if the stand…
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 it falls under the general framework of inductive reasoning.