= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Causation as Bias (sort of) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
From your first comment to my post on you were really agressive. Arguments are fine, but why always the personal attacks? I tell you what might be going on here: You saw the post, couldn't make sense of it after a quick glance and decided it was junk and an easy way to gain reputation and boost your ego by bashing. And you are not alone. There are lots of haters, and nobody who just said, Ok, I don't believe it, but let's discuss it, and stop hitting the guy over the head.
The theory is highly counterintuitive, I said as much, but it is worth at least a few minutes of discussion, and i discussed it with quite a few eminent philosophers already. None was convinced (which is hardly surprising), but they found the discussion interesting and the theory consistent. So something has gone wrong here. Maybe all this talk of "winning" and "bayesian conspiracy" and whatever really does not do a favor to the principle goal of the site of being as unbiased as possible.
Spuckblase, two things.
First, none of us are being as rude to you as you are to us in this comment alone. If you can't stand the abuse you're getting here, then quit commenting on this post.
Second, we've given this well more than a few minutes' discussion, and you've given us no reason to believe that we misunderstand your theory - you just object to our categorical dismissal of it. I am perfectly willing to believe that the philosophers you discussed this with gave you credit for making an interesting argument - philosophers are generous like that - and for all its faults, your theory is consistent. But around here, interesting is a matter of writing style, and consistent is a sub-minimal requirement: we demand useful. None of us are rationalists just for the lulz - if a theory doesn't help us get what we actually want, it really is of no use to us. And by that standard, any skeptical hypothesis is a waste of time, including your proposed Humeiform worldview, when other hypotheses actually work.
Edit circa 2014: the Slacktivist blog moved (mostly) to a new website - this is the new link to the "sub-minimal requirement" post.
Oh, I can take the abuse, I'm just wondering.
At least at first, I've been given just accusations and incredulous stares.
If you want the truth, you have to consider being wrong even about your darlings, say, prediction.
Do you actually believe this theory that you have proposed? Because we aren't arguing that it's logically impossible, we're explaining why we don't believe it.