![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Robin Hanson says no. If you're a truth-seeking rational thinker who understands disagreement theory, and you meet another such, you should come to agree on all matters of fact. The agreement might be on a probability distribution, i.e. agreeing on uncertainty, but that's not the same as agreeing to disagree. If you believe X is true, and another meta-rational believes Y is true, and you meet, something should change.
He mentions Gulliver's Travels, in that the Houyhnhnms agreed too much to seem human; here's a relevant link to the text.
He mentions Gulliver's Travels, in that the Houyhnhnms agreed too much to seem human; here's a relevant link to the text.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: I know about that stuff
Date: 2006-06-21 08:27 (UTC)From:Damien: I don't know of a terribly in-depth discussion, but Jaynes does briefly go over it around page 127 of _Probability Theory: the Logic of Science_