Johnicholas comments on Decision theory: Why we need to reduce “could”, “would”, “should” - Less Wrong

19 Post author: AnnaSalamon 02 September 2009 09:23AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (46)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 September 2009 06:59:05PM 6 points [-]

In my experience, beginning math students simply expect their nice-sounding procedures to work. For example, they expect to be able to add fractions straight across. When you tell them they can’t, they demand to know why they can’t, as though most nice-sounding theorems are true, and if you want to claim that one isn’t, the burden of proof is on you.

I've noticed that, on the few occasions I've taught genuine beginning-beginners. Never thought of it in that many words, but yeah. And the analogy to beginning rationality students, including 50-year-old scientists making up their own religions, is obvious and important. People starting out in math are operating in "sounds nice" mode, symbols with no consequences but their poetic resonance; and if you challenge their poetry they act all indignant, "Why's yours better than mine?" 50-year-old religious scientists never leave that mode.

Comment author: Johnicholas 02 September 2009 11:30:28PM *  1 point [-]

Is there a specific example of "50-year-old scientists making up their own religions" that you're thinking of?

Maybe Steven Jay Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria?

Comment author: randallsquared 03 September 2009 01:42:23PM 1 point [-]

Tipler, too.