✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 9,235 words · saved by 1 readers

Even if I go past the mere surface observation of the Sun rising, to the apparently universal and exceptionless laws of gravitation and nuclear physics, then I am still left with the question: "Why do I believe this will also be true tomorrow?" I could appeal to Occam's Razor, the principle of using the simplest theory that fits the facts... but why believe in Occam's Razor? Because it's been successful on past problems? But who says that this means Occam's Razor will work tomorrow? And lo, the one said: "Science also depends on unjustified assumptions. Thus science is ultimately based on faith, so don't you criticize me for believing in [silly-belief-#238721]." As I've previously observed: It's a most peculiar psychology—this business of "Science is based on faith too, so there!" Typically this is said by people who claim that faith is a good thing. Then why do they say "Science is based on faith too!" in that angry-triumphal tone, rather than as a compliment? Arguing that you s

x Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom — LessWrong Value Theory Reflective Reasoning The Problem of the Criterion Philosophy Epistemology Occam's Razor Frontpage 140 Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom by Eliezer Yudkowsky 8th Jul 2008 12 min read 81 140 Why do I believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow? Because I've seen the Sun rise on thousands of previous days. Ah... but why do I believe the future will be like the past? Even if I go past the mere surface observation of the Sun rising, to the apparently universal and exceptionless laws of gravitation and nuclear physics, then I a

Explore this link on the map →

related reading