Rationality Quotes - August 2009

6 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 August 2009 01:58AM

A monthly thread for posting any interesting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently on the Internet, or had stored in your quotesfile for ages.

  • Please post all quotes separately (so that they can be voted up/down separately) unless they are strongly related/ordered.
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB - if we do this, there should be a separate thread for it.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (118)

Comment author: ata 07 August 2009 04:50:43AM 26 points [-]

"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire

I've always found that useful to keep in mind when reading threads like this.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 August 2009 09:12:06PM 10 points [-]

I think this should go at the top of all monthly Rationality Quotes posts as an epigraph.

Comment author: Lumifer 14 November 2013 05:00:31AM 0 points [-]

I think this should go at the top of all monthly Rationality Quotes posts as an epigraph.

Or an epitaph.

Comment author: Rune 06 August 2009 03:43:35AM 23 points [-]

"As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life - so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls."

-- M. Cartmill

Comment author: RobinZ 06 August 2009 01:05:22PM 20 points [-]

No one has ever announced that because determinism is true thermostats do not control temperature.

Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, qtd. in Daniel Dennett, Elbow Room

Comment author: AllanCrossman 06 August 2009 01:56:49PM 1 point [-]

But what thermostats don't control is... what the thermostat is set to.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 August 2009 02:16:26PM 1 point [-]

But what thermostats don't control is... what the thermostat is set to.

Another control system does that. The chain tops out somewhere, of course.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 August 2009 04:44:32PM 1 point [-]

Allan didn't say otherwise.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 06 August 2009 05:13:00PM 5 points [-]

Richard didn't say otherwise.

Comment author: AllanCrossman 06 August 2009 06:45:21PM 14 points [-]

Eliezer didn't say... oh sod it.

Comment author: RobinZ 06 August 2009 01:04:15PM *  20 points [-]

It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.

Whitehead, Alfred North (1861 - 1947), An Introduction to Mathematics.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 August 2009 04:05:53AM 20 points [-]

Better our hypotheses die for our errors than ourselves.

-- Karl Popper

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 10 August 2009 07:22:53PM 17 points [-]

I forget if I've posted this before, but:

"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except when they're writing on a subject I know something about." -- Keith F. Lynch

Comment author: sark 24 December 2010 04:44:20PM 1 point [-]

Not sure about others, but my first reaction was that we should not trust the press as much, but then I realized that isn't the whole story. So this is for the sake of making it explicit: It could be that when the news comes to talk about something you are an expert in, you were simply nitpicking, using your superior knowledge in a particular domain to show off.

How do we tell? Perhaps there are other ways, but I would focus on relevance. Does my extra knowledge of the subject really affect the conclusions of this op-ed?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 August 2009 04:07:44AM 17 points [-]

Freedom is understood in contrast to its various opposites. I can be free as opposed to being presently coerced. I can be free as opposed to being under some other person's general control. I can be free as opposed to being subject to delusions or insanity. I can be free as opposed to being ruled by the state in denial of ordinary personal liberties. I can be free as opposed to being in jail or prison. I can be free as opposed to living under unusually heavy personal obligations. I can be free as opposed to being burdened by bias or prejudice. I can even be free (or free spirited) as opposed to being governed by ordinary social conventions. The question that needs to be asked, and which hardly ever is asked, is whether I can be free as opposed to being causally determined. Given that some kind of causal determinism is presupposed in the very concept of human action, it would be odd if this were so. Why does anyone think that it is?

-- David Hill

Comment author: brian_jaress 06 August 2009 08:58:46AM 3 points [-]

You've made essentially this argument yourself, and I've been wondering: How is causal determinism "presupposed in the concept of human action"?

Can't I do things without the results being guaranteed?

Comment author: Tiiba 07 August 2009 06:09:40PM 9 points [-]

"Can't I do things without the results being guaranteed?"

Yes; it's called ignorance. It's not called freedom.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 August 2009 11:15:19PM *  0 points [-]

You're not providing evidence. You're just presupposing what he's asking for evidence of.

Comment author: brian_jaress 07 August 2009 11:01:00PM 0 points [-]

Upvoted for giving a definite answer.

But just to make sure I've been clear, I meant to refer to whether the results are guaranteed in the absolute sense (causal determinism) regardless of whether they are guaranteed to match my expectations.

Comment author: Tiiba 08 August 2009 12:55:14AM 2 points [-]

If you mean quantum fluctuations, that's also something you're ignorant of. It doesn't make you free, though. It's just randomness.

Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4. Or that 2+2=goldfish, if that's what floats your boat. The important thing is that your words are determined by your goals. Basically, free will is will that happens to be free.

If the freedom you seek is freedom to change your GOALS (like bad habits), well, I guess we are restricted to a degree. I like to think of such goals as not really mine, but those of a beast that lives in my body. I am free.

Comment author: brian_jaress 08 August 2009 01:02:36AM 0 points [-]

The quote was about freedom. My question was about causal determinism, and it wasn't about the relationship between causal determinism and freedom.

Comment author: Tiiba 08 August 2009 05:59:57AM 1 point [-]

I reread your first post, and I think that you might have understood the word "action" too literally. Determinism is not presupposed in ANY human action, but to plan your next move, you need some idea of what its effect will be. And to do that, you need rules. That's causality.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 August 2009 06:57:45PM 3 points [-]

You can do things without the results being guaranteed.

But you cannot do anything, be responsible for any action, without causality.

Comment author: brian_jaress 07 August 2009 10:50:33PM 1 point [-]

RobinZ has pointed out that there's a difference between causality and causal determinism.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 August 2009 11:18:02PM -1 points [-]

You're losing sight of the original question. People who believe in free will don't deny causality.

Comment author: RobinZ 06 August 2009 01:19:52PM 2 points [-]

I personally recommend A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will by Robert Kane to anyone interested in that kind of question - it's short, and except when dealing with Kane's own theory (which it only does for the last few chapters), quite fair-minded.

But to address your remark: one problem with declaring indeterminism in human decision-making is how it interacts with cases where the decision is obvious. Suppose you were visiting a town you only ever traveled to once a decade, and in that town you went to a restaurant serving the greatest (let's say) minestrone soup in the world. You haven't eaten minestrone soup at all for a year, you love the stuff, it's the cheapest thing on the menu, and you're leaving tomorrow so you know you gotta get you some of this.

If you are causally determined to order the minestrone soup, are you acting of your own free will when you do?

If you are not, then are you acting of your own free will if you don't?

(I steal this example from my "Action and Responsibility" class a year or two ago, but it's a good one.)

Comment author: brian_jaress 06 August 2009 05:16:38PM 0 points [-]

Beats me. I guess it depends on what you mean by free will. (There are so many different meanings that I don't like to use the phrase.) It also doesn't answer my question at all.

If you explained how the fact that it's possible to order soup proves that events are perfectly predictable in theory, that would answer my question.

Comment author: RobinZ 06 August 2009 07:15:41PM 1 point [-]

Well, how did you mean your question? I mean, the answer is obviously, "of course you can act without guaranteed results, that's every action anyone has ever taken ever." Except that it's an utterly inane result which the people in the free will community (mostly) don't care about, and this entire debate is in the free will community, and needs to be understood in the context of compatibilism and incompatibilism.

See, there are numerous philosophers (and non-philosophers) whose model of free choice is "choice which could go either way, even under the exact same circumstances" - and they interpret it logically, that you could load the save file from before the decision and see them switch. If that's the nature of a free decision, then you run into the problem of the soup, here - apparently, you're only free to order the soup if you've got some measurable chance of not ordering the soup, despite that you'd have to be crazy or stupid to not order the soup. Which is counterintuitive, because nobody's holding a gun to your head - it looks like an exemplar of a free decision unless you're committed to that sort of philosophy.

Comment author: brian_jaress 06 August 2009 07:47:16PM 0 points [-]

Well, if it's true that "causal determinism is presupposed in the very concept of human action," then it should stay true when I'm talking about causal determinism and human action alone--and I should be able to ask for an explanation.

In other words, how does the fact that people do order soup show that if you load the save file, you're guaranteed the same result? I know it's used as a step in proofs about "free will," but I'm asking about the step, not the proofs. Another proof rebutting some of the people who don't like the first proof isn't an answer.

Comment author: RobinZ 06 August 2009 08:37:00PM *  1 point [-]

Wait, are you asking the empirical question, "do human decision-making processes operate in a deterministic fashion"? As far as I can tell, the answer is approximately "yes" (at least at scales typical of ordering food at a restaurant without influence from nondeterministic random-number generators), the aforementioned can-go-either-way philosophers are committed to the opposite answer (or to believing that we're just automata), and the people you really should be asking are the cognitive scientists and neuroscientists. Of which I am neither.

Comment author: brian_jaress 06 August 2009 08:54:55PM 0 points [-]

I'll try another rephrasing: I have been told that "causal determinism is presupposed in the very concept of human action." I look at the concept of human action and see no presupposition about causal determinism. So I ask, "Where in the concept is this presupposition? I can't find it."

Comment author: RobinZ 06 August 2009 08:57:22PM *  1 point [-]

...my, I am an idiot. No, it certainly doesn't look presupposed - I imagine someone is misunderstanding (Edit: or equivocating) the term "causal determinism". Causality is presupposed, but not determinism.

Comment author: Jeremy 07 August 2009 09:27:20AM *  0 points [-]

I was also frustrated by Hill's vagueness on what seemed to be an important point (perhaps he elaborates later?). In any case, I can tell you what I think Hill was thinking when he wrote that, though I'm not exceptionally confident about it.

The concept of human action--of making plans and following through with them--seems to be based on the assumption that the world is fundamentally predictable. We make decisions as if the future can to some extent be determined by a knowledge of the present, paired with a set of well-defined rules.

The natural objection to this would be that human action only presupposes some ability to predict the future, but not the perfect ability that might be possible if causal determinism is true. However, one could argue that it is far more natural to assume that the future is completely predictable, at least hypothetically, based on the fact that even our limited knowledge of the laws of nature seems to give us a good deal of predictive power. After all, there are many things we cannot yet do, but this would seem to be poor evidence that they are logically impossible.

So in my mind, Hill wasn't trying to make a definitive case for causal determinism, only observing that it is the far more natural conclusion to draw, based on the planning-oriented way human beings interact with the world.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 August 2009 11:09:08PM *  0 points [-]

I'm surprised that's gotten so many upvotes. It's just a very long way of saying "Why do people disagree with me?" without providing any reasons to agree. The sudden switch to talking about causal determinism is a non-sequitur.

Causal determinism is presupposed in the concept of human action? Um, no. Belief in free will is not the same as denial of causality.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 August 2009 03:50:52AM 17 points [-]

Consequentialism: The belief that doing the right thing makes the world a better place.

-- DanielLC

Comment author: James_K 06 August 2009 04:57:56AM 0 points [-]

Suitably pithy, but that really should be the other way around shouldn't it?

NB: I recognise the difference between quoting and approving of the quote.

Comment author: Technologos 06 August 2009 05:35:05AM 5 points [-]

My understanding is that the quote is meant to invert the way we normally think of consequentialism (that making the world a better place is doing the right thing). The quote simply puts the logic in causal order, such that we can naturally say "I am doing the right thing if (and only if?) it makes the world a better place."

Comment author: Nominull 06 August 2009 06:44:13AM *  0 points [-]

Well, you need an implicit "and doing the wrong thing does not" before it becomes logically equivalent to consequentialism.

Comment author: ajayjetti 11 August 2009 11:17:10PM 16 points [-]

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter." ~Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Comment author: hegemonicon 06 August 2009 05:30:25AM *  16 points [-]

Try looking at your mind as a wayward puppy that you are trying to paper train. You don't drop-kick a puppy into the neighbor's yard every time it pisses on the floor. You just keep bringing it back to the newspaper. So I keep trying to gently bring my mind back to what is really there to be seen, maybe to be seen and noted with a kind of reverence. Because if I don't learn to do this, I think I'll keep getting things wrong.

-Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 August 2009 03:52:00AM 13 points [-]

I almost believe we are ghosts, all of us. It's not just what we inherit from our fathers and mothers that walks again in us - it's all sorts of dead old ideas and dead beliefs and things like that. They don't exactly live in us, but there they sit all the same and we can't get rid of them. All I have to do is pick up a newspaper, and I see ghosts lurking between the lines. I think there are ghosts everywhere you turn in this country - as many as there are grains of sand - and then there we all are, so abysmally afraid of the light.

-- Ibsen, 1881

Comment author: gwern 06 August 2009 08:10:13AM 4 points [-]

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

--Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)

Comment author: gwern 06 August 2009 08:12:21AM *  3 points [-]

"Layer upon layer, past times preserve themselves in the city until life itself is finally threatened with suffocation; then, in sheer defense, modern man invents the museum."

--Lewis Mumford, quoted in The Clock of the Long Now

Comment author: thomblake 14 August 2009 03:09:11PM *  11 points [-]

Albert grunted. "Do you know what happens to lads who ask too many questions?"
Mort thought for a moment.
"No," he said eventually, "what?"
There was silence.
Then Albert straightened up and said, "Damned if I know. Probably they get answers, and serve 'em right."

-Terry Pratchett, Mort

Comment author: Cyan 06 August 2009 05:29:24PM *  11 points [-]

"The account of perception that’s starting to emerge is what we might call the “brain’s best guess” theory of perception: perception is the brain’s best guess about what is happening in the outside world. The mind integrates scattered, weak, rudimentary signals from a variety of sensory channels, information from past experiences, and hard-wired processes, and produces a sensory experience full of brain-provided color, sound, texture, and meaning. ... Perception is inference."[emphasis added]

- Atul Gawande

Comment author: djcb 06 August 2009 05:15:45PM *  11 points [-]

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it.

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

[ while in general I value philosophy, there is also much nonsense and, especially, little progress ]

Comment author: Yvain 06 August 2009 05:57:38AM *  11 points [-]

[Mathematical methods of inference] literally have no content; long division can calculate miles per gallon, or it can calculate income per capita. The statistical tools of experimental psychology were borrowed from agronomy, where they were invented to gauge the effects of different fertilizers on crop yields. The tools work just fine in psychology, even though, as one psychological statistician wrote, "we do not deal in manure, at least not knowingly."

-- Steven Pinker, How The Mind Works

Comment author: XFrequentist 06 August 2009 03:25:20AM *  11 points [-]

Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.

-- Richard Feynman The Character of Physical Law

Comment author: anonym 07 August 2009 05:27:59AM 10 points [-]

There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

John Von Neumann

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 07 August 2009 06:37:22AM 4 points [-]

That seems like the perfect condemnation for his book on quantum mechanics.

This is also the guy who said "Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." Wikipedia says that what the young man didn't understand is the method of characteristics, which sounds like it should be understood, from what little I know about it.

Do you have a source or context for this quote?

Comment author: anonym 08 August 2009 04:19:41AM 0 points [-]

No, I've come across it many times but never seen a source. Wikiquote includes it but without a source.

Comment author: JohannesDahlstrom 07 August 2009 07:29:07PM 9 points [-]

There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.

-- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

Comment author: anonym 07 August 2009 05:36:59AM 9 points [-]

Your job as a scientist is to figure out how you’re fooling yourself.

Saul Perlmutter

Comment author: RobinZ 06 August 2009 01:03:37PM *  9 points [-]

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1646-1716): Although the whole of this life were said to be nothing but a dream and the physical world nothing but a phantasm, I should call this dream or phantasm real enough, if, using reason well, we were never deceived by it.

In J. R. Newman (ed.), The World of Mathematics, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.

Comment author: brian_jaress 06 August 2009 08:32:18AM *  9 points [-]
 It's great to be able to stop
When you've planned a thing that's wrong,
And be able to do something else instead

-- Fred M. Rogers, "What Do You Do?"

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 06 August 2009 12:28:35PM 1 point [-]

Which he recited right in front of a senate committee in the process of trying to get more funding for PBS, I think it was.

Comment author: Rune 06 August 2009 03:43:23AM 9 points [-]

"It’s hard to argue with a counter-example."

-- Roger Brockett

Comment author: soreff 07 August 2009 10:43:43PM 4 points [-]

A co-worker of mine regularly responds to counterexamples of software designs, examples which show where the design breaks, with "Show me an example from a real user case". :-(

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 August 2009 02:00:24AM *  9 points [-]

I sure wished I knew what the hell I was talking about, but I'd picked up enough terms and felt the importance attached to them, so that I could use them properly without knowing what they meant. But they felt right, so very right...

-- Roger Zelazny, as Corwin ("Nine Princes in Amber").

Comment author: kpreid 06 August 2009 12:59:16PM 1 point [-]

Which book is this? I might read it for the context.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 August 2009 01:29:33PM *  1 point [-]

"Nine Princes in Amber"

Comment author: dclayh 06 August 2009 05:16:39AM *  8 points [-]

Even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point.

—Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground

(Self-promotion: this is the epigraph to the novella I'm working on, which is not really about rationality but is about what we're pleased to call "human nature", and which you may read the beginning of here if so inclined.)

Comment author: gwern 06 August 2009 12:37:33PM 0 points [-]

Reading through that, I itch to give feedback (even if just the spelling alone). What's the best way to do that?

Comment author: Simulacra 06 August 2009 05:49:43AM 0 points [-]

Read the first chapter of your novella. Were it not for the delineation I probably would still be reading and hiding from sleep. Work tomorrow, I expect I'll come back to it after.

Comment author: agolubev 06 August 2009 11:09:50PM *  -2 points [-]

exactly. and that's a man simply trying to gain his point. The bottleneck for the ideas on this blog finding reality are in f*d up economic incentives and feedback loops. I think it's asenine of us to stick to our ball to the wall INTJ-ness in light of the current economic and political events. it may not be that bad, but it's light years away from the optimum.

Comment author: Simulacra 06 August 2009 04:46:55AM 8 points [-]

Feedback phenomena and human intuition are uncomfortable bedfellows. When people dislike where an equilibrium argument takes them, it is therefore unsurprising that they invent simpler arguments that lead to more palatable conclusions. However, the first principle of rational thought is never to allow your preferences to influence your beliefs.

Ken Binmore

Comment author: Rune 06 August 2009 03:44:23AM 8 points [-]

"If you’ve never missed a flight, you’re spending too much time in airports."

-- Umesh Vazirani (as quoted by Scott Aaronson)

Comment author: dclayh 06 August 2009 05:12:49AM 1 point [-]

Huh. Do you know the original source for that quote? Because I came across it (with no attribution given) in Steven Landsburg's book Fair Play, and while it's not so original a thought that it couldn't have been thought of independently, someone stealing seems more likely.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 August 2009 04:04:49AM 7 points [-]

True, it would be some kind of bland comfort if no one had any cause for which they would be willing to kill. It would be an unimaginable horror, though, if no one had a cause for which they were willing to die.

-- Tailsteak

Comment author: Nominull 06 August 2009 06:46:53AM 8 points [-]

Being willing to die for a cause is being willing to kill for a cause, with the caveat that your devotion is so lukewarm that you limit yourself to killing at most one person.

A true superhero would die or kill to save the world, as the situation dictated.

Comment author: edolet 06 August 2009 10:27:59PM 6 points [-]

"Most men are so thoroughly subjective that nothing really interests them but themselves. They always think of their own case as soon as any remark is made, and their whole attention is engrossed and absorbed by the merest chance reference to anything which affects them personally, be it never so remote: with the result that they have no power left for forming an objective view of things, should the conversation take that turn; neither can they admit any validity in arguments which tell against their interest or their vanity."

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Comment author: thomblake 14 August 2009 02:23:39PM *  5 points [-]

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.

-Mark Twain

Comment author: ajayjetti 11 August 2009 11:15:20PM 5 points [-]

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. ~Andre Gide

Comment author: JohannesDahlstrom 07 August 2009 07:28:35PM *  5 points [-]

The trouble was that he was talking in philosophy, but they were listening in gibberish.

-- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

Comment author: ajayjetti 14 August 2009 11:05:15PM *  4 points [-]

“To rationalize their lies, people -- and the governments, churches, or terrorist cells they compose -- are apt to regard their private interests and desires as just.”

--Wendy Kaminer (A woman social activist)

Comment author: orthonormal 15 August 2009 08:35:43PM 0 points [-]

You need to attribute quotes (and, as per the rules above, you can't quote yourself).

Comment author: ajayjetti 15 August 2009 09:31:17PM 1 point [-]

yeah, just totally missed it...edited now

Comment author: thomblake 14 August 2009 03:21:44PM *  4 points [-]

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

-Buddha

Comment author: anonym 15 August 2009 06:27:18PM 2 points [-]

On the same theme:

O monks, just as a goldsmith tests his gold by melting, cutting and rubbing, sages accept my teachings after full examination, and not just out of devotion.

-- Buddha, Tattvasamgraha

Comment author: djcb 06 August 2009 05:10:04PM 4 points [-]

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man > who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

~ Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

[ I'm actually not too fond of objectivism, but this quote is spot-on ]

Comment author: Nominull 06 August 2009 05:42:34PM 0 points [-]

You say "slave morality" like it's a bad thing.

Comment author: djcb 06 August 2009 06:45:30PM 2 points [-]

Could you please explain?

There is no mentioning of slave morality at all; it's about people trying to subjugate others with words like 'sacrifice'.

Even If you see a relation to Nietzsche's master/slave-morality, the quote clearly is not in support of that at all.

Comment author: Jens 06 August 2009 12:39:11PM *  3 points [-]

In sane moments we regard only the facts, the case that is. Say what you have to say, not what you ought. Any truth is better than make-believe.

-- Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Comment author: billswift 16 August 2009 01:38:02PM 2 points [-]

The problem with engineers is that they tend to cheat in order to get results.

The problem with mathematicians is that they tend to work on toy problems in order to get results.

The problem with program verifiers is that they tend to cheat on toy programs in order to get results.

the UNIX fortune-cookie program; original source unknown

Comment author: brian_jaress 09 August 2009 03:52:31AM 2 points [-]

[T]he dogmatist within is always worse than the enemy without.

-- Stephen Jay Gould

Comment author: anonym 07 August 2009 05:30:21AM 2 points [-]

The study of mathematics cannot be replaced by any other activity that will train and develop man’s purely logical faculties to the same level of rationality.

Cletus O. Oakley

Comment author: anonym 07 August 2009 05:29:12AM 2 points [-]

It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation should avail for the discovery of new works, since the subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the subtlety of argument. But axioms duly and orderly formed from particulars easily discover the way to new particulars, and thus render sciences active.

Francis Bacon

Comment author: ajayjetti 13 August 2009 08:51:08PM *  1 point [-]

Whenever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd or evil, it is because we have but a partial knowledge of things, and are in the main ignorant of order and coherence of nature as a whole, and because we want everything to be arranged according to dictates of our own reason; although in fact, what our reason pronounces bad is not as bad as regards the order and laws of universal nature, but only as regards the order and laws of our own nature taken separately.... As for the terms good and bad, they indicate nothing positive considered in themselves...For one and the same thing can at the same time be good, bad and indifferent. For example, music is good to the melancholy, bad to mourners and indifferent to the dead. ---Spinoza

From the story of philosophy by Will durant

Comment author: endoself 05 February 2011 02:24:39AM 0 points [-]

Ha ha, a literally rationalist quote!

Comment author: ajayjetti 13 August 2009 09:14:25PM 0 points [-]

Can somebody tell me what is wrong with the above quote? Just curious, because I already see downvotes on it

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 13 August 2009 11:01:39PM -2 points [-]

You admitted to reading secondary sources.

Comment author: ajayjetti 13 August 2009 11:18:26PM 1 point [-]

What is wrong with that?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 August 2009 02:14:11PM 1 point [-]

"God ha' mercy! What cannot be racked from words in five centuries? One could wring, methinks, a flood from a damp clout!"

Shakespeare in the 20th century, as imagined by Isaac Asimov in "The Immortal Bard".

Comment author: spriteless 06 August 2009 03:02:42AM 1 point [-]

When even fourth grade starts looking good Which you hated And first grade's looking good too Overrated And you boys long for some little girl that you dated Do you long for her or for the way you were?

A verse from Jonathan Richman's song, "Summer Feeling," on memory.

Comment author: Nanani 10 August 2009 01:07:46AM 3 points [-]

This quote is so utterly alien to me that I must ask why it was selected.

Comment author: ajayjetti 26 August 2009 05:50:00PM 0 points [-]

Your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality.

--Eliezer (http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/)

Comment author: Cyan 26 August 2009 06:09:59PM 1 point [-]

From the OP: do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.

Comment author: ajayjetti 27 August 2009 09:58:38AM 2 points [-]

got it

Comment author: botogol 11 August 2009 09:35:43AM 0 points [-]

"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something" Thoreau

Comment author: cousin_it 10 August 2009 09:28:25PM *  0 points [-]

A saint may fight against a knave. Alternatively, two knaves may fight. A dragon may be slain by St. George, or by another dragon. In the former case you are left with St. George, who deserves a reward for slaying his dragon. In the latter case you are faced with a dragon, which did only what dragons do. He was probably the bigger of the two, and now he is even bigger than that.

-- Mencius Moldbug, teaching us how to argue any point persuasively. (In this example he's talking about the Allies vs Nazi Germany.)

Comment author: JohannesDahlstrom 07 August 2009 07:27:52PM 0 points [-]

"Now we've got a truth to die for!" "No. Men should die for lies. But the truth is too precious to die for."

-- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

Comment author: anonym 07 August 2009 05:34:01AM 0 points [-]

More than ambition, more than ability, it is rules that limit contribution; rules are the lowest common denominator of human behavior. They are a substitute for rational thought.

Hyman G. Rickover

Comment author: RichardKennaway 16 August 2009 03:40:28PM -1 points [-]

"You can't tell what someone is doing by watching what they're doing."

-- Richard Marken

"Action speaks nothing, without the Motive."

-- anonymous fortune cookie

Comment author: RichardKennaway 10 August 2009 09:12:45PM -1 points [-]

Mencius said, "Whenever anyone told him that he had made a mistake, Tzu-lu was delighted. Whenever he heard a fine saying, Yü bowed low before the speaker. The Great Shun was even greater. He was ever ready to fall into line with others, giving up his own ways for theirs, and glad to take from others that by which he could do good."

Comment author: Rune 06 August 2009 03:44:51AM -1 points [-]

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

-- Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (New International Version)

Comment author: gwern 06 August 2009 08:15:09AM 7 points [-]

The point of a quote is usually obvious, but this one isn't. The original writers were simply laying down their sexist laws - but why are you quoting it?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 07 August 2009 04:03:26AM 2 points [-]

I can't speak for Rune, but I think it's interesting because it's awfully specific. It's an example of the conjunction fallacy that someone thought this important enough to be a rule. To my common-law mind, it would be more sensible if it were something like "...even if it's to save her husband." And maybe it did mean that, since conjunctions are a common place for miscommunication.

Comment author: Rune 01 September 2009 08:47:00PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, my interpretation was similar. It is far too specific to simply be used as an exhibit of sexist thinking.