Live data from Hacker News

A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers

jsomers.net

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers

#71
post #45

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?

Sure it could translate seamlessly to the problem solving domain generally

Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers

#72
post #51

Earlier 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.

That sounds to me like (1) not a clear example of a Gettier case and (2) something that would, in fact, be rare.

#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

#73
This reminds me of a recent event at WrestleKingdom 13, a Japanese professional wrestling event where, as you might imagine, pretty much everything is planned and choreographed ahead of time.

In 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

#74
Another really great work that's related to some of these concepts is "Naming and Necessity" by the philosopher Saul Kripke.

https://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

#75

I 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.…

Your model of thinking is something like idealized bayesian one, not like human. If your mind decided that something is true with sufficient probability, it then fails to see alternative explanations. This "something" will be a reality to you, not just a belief about reality. But it is not the all. Your mind have some ideas associated with cow you've seen, and those ideas also becomes beliefs of yours. Implicit beliefs, you are probably not aware of them, you could notice this implicit beliefs only if they will begin to contradict evidence in a sharp way. For example, you can implicitly decide that this is a soft tempered cow, that would like to lick you in a face, if you come near. It was not important when you saw the model of a cow, so you didn't become consiously aware of your idea of a cow temper. But it was planted in you idea of reality. Maybe you would have an intention to come near the cow to be licked in the face, and you might be unaware of this intention. Human mind can easily manage such tricks.

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

#76
> 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.

Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers

#77

I 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…

I think what you're saying is correct when it comes to perception with our senses, the kind of knowledge we share with the other higher animals. However, there is a higher level of knowledge that is unique to humans, which is rational in nature and can come up with certain knowledge. We can know certain mathematical and logical truths with certainty, such as 2 + 2 = 4 and that A and not A cannot both be true. We may not get an accurate count of cows in the field because one is hidden from view, but we can know with certainty that if we have X cows in field A and Y cows in field B, we have a total of X + Y cows in the two fields.

Re: A three-page paper that shook philosophy, with lessons for software engineers

#78

I 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.…

> From that point you can go in at least two directions, one would be something like a Turing test of the fake cow... beyond a certain point it’s a matter of semantics as to whether it’s a real cow or not, or you could say that your “justified true belief” had to apply to the total state of the field. If you believed there was both a cow model and a cow behind it, that woukd be justified, but the existence of the cow behind the model would not justify incorrect belief that the model was a real cow, in the sense of not admitting uncertainty over the things you see.

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

#79
post #48

Earlier 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…

I know my name just like I make a cup of tea. It's not you who makes my cup of tea, right, so who is it? Well, me—the referent of my name, this person right here.

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.

He simply wasn't speaking with precision. If you replace "code change" with "pull request" in his statement, it's JTB.
Post reply on HN