Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The use of uninformative models, or, what do you choose to believe?

filtherton · 05-10-2011, 09:10 AM

We all choose our perspectives, whether it's a conscious choice or not.

One way to choose is to use aesthetic value. For instance, religious folk may choose the religious model because on some fundamental level, they find the notion appealing. Similarly, science-y atheist types may choose science-y atheism because on some fundamental level, they find the idea of an approximately deterministic, reducible reality appealing (this explains the phenomenon of the science-y atheist who is completely and willfully clueless when it comes to cultivating in his/herself a comprehensive understanding of science or the scientific method).

Or, one can ignore aesthetics and rely entirely on model predictive value. According to this criterion, the science-y atheist model wins hands down.

A third option, and what think I tend to do: choose to believe things that are useful. This option works well in most situations, since it defaults to favoring predictive value, and, if all models have equal predictive value (for instance, all models of the afterlife have equal predictive value since all rely on unforgivable extrapolation) it lets me believe whatever I think is nice.

How do you decide what to believe?

05-10-2011, 09:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The use of uninformative models, or, what do you choose to believe? We all choose our perspectives, whether it's a conscious choice or not. One way to choose is to use aesthetic value. For instance, religious folk may choose the religious model because on some fundamental level, they find the notion appealing. Similarly, science-y atheist types may choose science-y atheism because on some fundamental level, they find the idea of an approximately deterministic, reducible reality appealing (this explains the phenomenon of the science-y atheist who is completely and willfully clueless when it comes to cultivating in his/herself a comprehensive understanding of science or the scientific method). Or, one can ignore aesthetics and rely entirely on model predictive value. According to this criterion, the science-y atheist model wins hands down. A third option, and what think I tend to do: choose to believe things that are useful. This option works well in most situations, since it defaults to favoring predictive value, and, if all models have equal predictive value (for instance, all models of the afterlife have equal predictive value since all rely on unforgivable extrapolation) it lets me believe whatever I think is nice. How do you decide what to believe?