Rationality Quotes: October 2009

7 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:06PM

A monthly thread for posting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently (or had stored in your quotesfile for ages).

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately.  (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments.  If strongly ordered, then fine, post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (276)

Comment author: anonym 31 October 2009 09:15:23PM 1 point [-]

The intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or false. The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical evaluation.

— Peter Medawar

Comment author: anonym 31 October 2009 09:14:43PM 1 point [-]

Science attempts to find logic and simplicity in nature. Mathematics attempts to establish order and simplicity in human thought.

— Edward Teller

Comment author: gwern 28 October 2009 01:41:50PM 0 points [-]

"The demand for immortality is nowadays essentially teleological. We believe ourselves immortal because we believe ourselves fit for immortality. A 'substance' ought to perish we think, if not worthy to survive, and an insubstantial 'stream' to prolong itself where worthy, if the nature of Things is organized in the rational way we trust it is."

--William James, "The Consciousness of Self", The Principles of Psychology

Comment author: RichardKennaway 28 October 2009 02:52:12PM *  2 points [-]

Whereas nowadays, at least in communities like this one, the demand is moral and technological. We think that not dying is desirable and achievable, but not yet achieved.

Comment author: gwern 28 October 2009 04:13:05PM *  1 point [-]

Do we all truly feel that we only want immortality out of simple self-interest, greed or selfishness if you will - and not because we feel that creatures such as ourselves should not have to die, that death is an injustice, that we deserve to live?

If so, then maybe we are not like the men of the 19th century James is describing, and that is a very interesting change in its own right.

EDIT: This may be an interesting link about the emotional content of the fight against death: http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda

What would it be like to be a rational atheist in the fifteenth century, and know beyond all hope of rescue that everyone you loved would be annihilated, one after another as you watched, unless you yourself died first? That is still the fate of humans today; the ongoing horror has not changed, for all that we have hope. Death is not a distant dream, not a terrible tragedy that happens to someone else like the stories you read in newspapers. One day you'll get a phone call, like I got a phone call, and the possibility that seemed distant will become reality. You will mourn, and finish mourning, and go on with your life, and then one day you'll get another phone call. That is the fate this world has in store for you, unless you make a convulsive effort to change it.

...

If I had spoken Yehuda's eulogy I would not have comforted the mourners in their loss. I would have told the mourners that Yehuda had been absolutely annihilated, that there was nothing left of him. I would have told them they were right to be angry, that they had been robbed, that something precious and irreplaceable was taken from them, for no reason at all, taken from them and shattered, and they are never getting it back.

Comment author: falija 04 November 2009 11:26:52AM 0 points [-]

"Life itself is a quotation." Jorge Luis Borges

Comment author: gwern 04 November 2009 05:02:51PM 0 points [-]

"If I am not mistaken, the heterogeneous pieces I have enumerated resemble Kafka; if I am not mistaken, not all of them resemble each other. This second fact is the more significant. In each of these texts we find Kafka's idiosyncrasy to a greater or lesser degree, but if Kafka had never written a line, we would not perceive this quality; in other words, it would not exist. The poem, 'Fears and Scruples' by Browning foretells Kafka's work, but our reading of Kafka perceptibly sharpens and deflects our reading of the poem. Browning did not read it as we do now. In the critics' vocabulary, the word 'precursor' is indispensable, but it should be cleansed of all connotation of polemics or rivalry. The fact is the every writer creates his own precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future. In this correlation the identity or plurality of the men involved is unimportant."

-- "Kafka and his Precursors"

Comment author: ariel 27 October 2009 08:51:06PM 2 points [-]

Nullius in verba ~The Royal Society

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2009 09:14:53PM 3 points [-]

Ah, yes, Latin for "On nobody's say-so." (Slang translation)

Comment author: CronoDAS 27 October 2009 10:50:30AM *  6 points [-]

MY mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red:
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask’d, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound:
I grant I never saw a goddess go,—
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

-Shakespeare, Sonnet 130

(Incidentally, I find it annoying that I can't post properly formatted poetry or song lyrics in comments. I can't use a single carriage return, and am instead forced to choose between putting a blank line in between every line of the quote, or putting everything on one line.)

Edit: Thank you! Now, is there a way to add spaces to the beginning of a line? HTML has a tendency to ignore whitespace; does the code block override that?

Comment author: wedrifid 27 October 2009 01:53:10PM *  4 points [-]
MY mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red:
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask’d, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound:
I grant I never saw a goddess go,—
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

-Shakespeare, Sonnet 130

(4 spaces at the start of a line indicates a code block.)

Comment author: wedrifid 27 October 2009 01:58:46PM *  3 points [-]

Or, if fixed width poetry isn't to your taste:

MY mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red:
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask’d, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound:
I grant I never saw a goddess go,—
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.
-Shakespeare, Sonnet 130

(To end a line without ending a paragraph type in two spaces at the end of the line before the enter.)

Comment author: wedrifid 27 October 2009 02:21:24PM *  4 points [-]

(Or any other creative work around you happen to dream up. I think the two spaces at the end thing was the answer you were looking for.)

Comment author: alyssavance 27 October 2009 12:13:23AM 3 points [-]

"Do you really mean to tell me that back in Berlin you've got a plan for war against France and one for war against France and England and one for war against France and England and Russia and one for-"

"Aber naturlich," [But naturally] Schlieffen broke in. "And we think of also Austria-Hungary and Italy, though they are now our friend. And we remember Holland and Belgium and Denmark and Sweden and Turkey and-"

The general-in-chief of the United States stared at him. "Jesus Christ, you do mean it," Rosecrans said slowly. "What do they do in that General Staff of yours, Colonel, sit around all say studying maps and timetables and lists of regiments and God knows what all else?"

"Yes," Schlieffen answered, surprised yet again that Rosecrans should be surprised at the idea of military planning. "We believe that, if war comes, we should as little to chance leave as we can."

  • Harry Turtledove, How Few Remain
Comment author: gwern 26 October 2009 04:34:15PM 8 points [-]

"Whoso wishes to grasp God with his intellect becomes an atheist."

--Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf

(M. Aug. Gottlieb Spangenbergs Apologetische Schluß-Schrift (Leipzig and Görlitz, 1752; http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/lists/quotations/quotations_by_ib.html )

Comment author: haig 25 October 2009 11:26:17PM 4 points [-]

"People are not base animals, but people, about 90% animal and 10% something new and different. Religion can be looked on as an act of rebellion by the 90% animal against the 10% new and different (most often within the same person)."

Comment author: wedrifid 27 October 2009 12:31:13AM 11 points [-]

That way of looking at it is attractive but I don't think it is accurate. Most of religion is the outcome of that extra 10% and definitely part of what we identify as 'person'. Rejecting religion, and other equivalent institutions is an act of rebellion of 2% against the other 8%.

Comment author: childofbaud 25 October 2009 06:35:23PM *  11 points [-]

A formula is worth a thousand pictures.

—Edsger Dijkstra

Comment author: Wei_Dai 25 October 2009 04:57:00PM 4 points [-]

[This is not a quote, but a meta discussion.]

I find it curious that the quotes posted here have higher votes on average than the usual discussion comments, and it makes me think that I have a below-average appreciation for quotations. Why do people value them, I wonder?

Comment author: Technologos 02 November 2009 10:18:15AM 1 point [-]

Me, I like that I can carry them around as an easily-accessed procedure for focusing on a rationalist task. Some of Eliezer's most effective posts, I'd say, had as a key feature a single phrase ("shut up and multiply," for instance) that stuck with the community much like quotes stick with me.

Comment author: ariel 27 October 2009 08:43:22PM 4 points [-]

beceause...

“Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit.” ~Oscar Wilde

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 28 October 2009 12:25:04AM 3 points [-]

“Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit.” ~Oscar Wilde

Wilde: I wish I'd said that
Whistler: You will, Oscar, you will!

Comment author: RobinZ 28 October 2009 01:09:51AM *  3 points [-]

(For the record, Wikiquote suggests W. Somerset Maugham, in the 1926 short story The Creative Impulse - the exact quote listed being "She had a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit".)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 27 October 2009 08:57:17AM *  2 points [-]

Quotes are selected for their penetrating insight and importance. Comments, not necessarily.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 27 October 2009 03:47:16AM 1 point [-]

Apparently, to summarize several responses, brevity is key. Well, I like brevity as much as the next person, but I also like explanations and arguments, and it seems that most quotes achieve conciseness at the cost of leaving out the "why". So after reading a quote, I can have one of three responses:

  1. nod my head in agreement if it's something I already knew
  2. track down the original book/article to find the explanation or argument
  3. just move on with some amount of frustration

1 and 3 don't provide me with much benefit, and I usually don't bother to do 2, because of the hassle involved, and because I don't know whether the source material even contains an attempt to argue or explain.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 October 2009 12:33:28AM 1 point [-]

Why do people value them, I wonder?

Appreciation and repetition of sound bites is an awesome way of gaining status. When it comes to 'new' thoughts we can often get more status by engaging with them to prove our intellectual prowess.

Comment author: DaveInNYC 26 October 2009 11:52:58PM 4 points [-]

I suspect it is because the main post refers to quotes being "voted up/down separately," i.e. it puts it in people's minds that they are supposed to vote on the quotes. I do find it funny that I got 12 karma points for cutting/pasting a quote; C.S. Lewis deserves the karma points, not me (as evidenced by the fact that I have gotten a grand total of 1 point from my own original posts). If one wanted to game the karma system, posting pithy quotes is the way to go.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 October 2009 12:23:04AM *  3 points [-]

If one wanted to game the karma system, posting pithy quotes is the way to go.

No, creating multiple accounts with whatever level of investment of effort is sufficient to avoid detection is the way to go. And also too easy to be worth bothering with for a reward of no external value. There are systems to game that pay off in dollars.

Comment author: gwern 27 October 2009 10:56:47PM 0 points [-]

How do multiple accounts help? (I don't remember accounts being gifted with any starting capital.) Do you allude to using multiple accounts to vote each other's comments up?

Comment author: Alicorn 28 October 2009 02:09:28AM *  3 points [-]

While the number of downvotes one can give is capped by one's karma score, upvotes aren't limited in that way. So if you're Username1 (under which alias you've made 50 comments), and you create account Username2, you can (under guise Username2) upvote all fifty comments by Username1. Instant fifty point boost for Username1. Username2 need never post a word.

Comment author: UnholySmoke 27 October 2009 10:35:05PM 0 points [-]

Who actually gets off on earning loads of karma across multiple accounts with no-one knowing?

Comment author: wedrifid 28 October 2009 03:16:02AM *  2 points [-]

I would be surprised if anyone did. As I said, there are systems to game give more tangible rewards.

The only foray I've had to multiple accounts consists of deleting my original account when I realised that using my real name means either constraining my posting to signalling or risking biting my future self in the arse through a residual trail of honesty.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 25 October 2009 09:42:41PM *  3 points [-]

I find it curious that the quotes posted here have higher votes on average than the usual discussion comments...Why do people value them, I wonder?

I do not conclude that they value them. I think people vote for top-level posts and other stand-alone situations, such as quotations, based on whether they like them, while they vote for comments in on-going discussions based on trying to push them to a particular score, which is usually positive but low. I'm not entirely sure what puts people in different voting modes. Alicorn's comment is surely true, but I'm not sure whether it's an independent effect or a cause of the different voting mode.

Comment author: childofbaud 25 October 2009 06:41:04PM *  4 points [-]

"A proverb is much matter distilled into few words."

—R. Buckminster Fuller

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 October 2009 03:00:24AM 0 points [-]

"A proverb is ... few words."

Comment author: anonym 27 October 2009 04:00:04AM 2 points [-]

It is the distillation part -- the extraordinary degree of compression of experience -- that is most important, not the "few words" part.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 October 2009 05:55:55PM 3 points [-]

Short is good.

Comment author: Alicorn 25 October 2009 05:22:34PM 8 points [-]

The quotes are, by and large, selected for their ability to be appreciated out of context, and so there's a low threshold of understanding: you don't have to read a lengthy top post or six layers of ancestor comments to understand a quote.

Comment author: anonym 24 October 2009 10:25:46PM *  11 points [-]

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural — that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world — not even in infinite space. I was free — free to think, to express my thoughts — free to live to my own ideal — free to live for myself and those I loved — free to use all my faculties, all my senses — free to spread imagination’s wings — free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope — free to judge and determine for myself — free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past — free from the popes and priests — free from all the “called” and “set apart” — free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies — free from the fear of eternal pain — free from the winged monsters of the night — free from devils, ghosts, and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought — no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings — no chains for my limbs — no lashes for my back — no fires for my flesh — no master’s frown or threat — no following another’s steps — no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave for the liberty of hand and brain — for the freedom of labor and thought — to those who fell in the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains — to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs — to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn — to those by fire consumed — to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

— Robert G. Ingersoll

Comment author: pjeby 24 October 2009 07:51:58PM 0 points [-]

"Although blinding with science can be used in any argument, many will recognize the special domain of this fallacy as the subjects which like to consider themselves as sciences, but are not.

Science deals with things from atoms to stars at a level where individual differences do not matter. The scientist talks of 'all' rolling bodies or whatever, and formulates general laws to test by experiment.

The trouble with human beings is that, unlike rolling bodies, the individual differences do matter. Often, again unlike rolling bodies, they want to do different things.

Although this might prevent us from being scientific about human beings, it does not stop us pretending to be so. What we do here is to add the word 'science' onto the study, giving us 'economic science', 'political science' and 'social science'. Then we dress them in that white coat of scientific language, and hope that no one will notice the difference."

-- Madsen Pirie, "How To Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic"

Comment author: DaveInNYC 24 October 2009 06:53:52PM 31 points [-]

I have met people who exaggerate the differences [between the morality of different cultures], because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did-if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.

-C.S. Lewis

Comment author: Bugle 28 October 2009 10:51:29AM 4 points [-]

Incidentally, the Spanish inquisition did not believe in witches either, dismissing the whole thing as "female humours"

Comment author: SilasBarta 26 October 2009 06:14:53PM 3 points [-]

Wait, C. S. Lewis didn't believe in witches, i.e. that there could be people who "sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers" to hurt others? Color me surprised.

In any case, he certainly didn't do much to repudiate the part of his intellectual pedigree that was responsible for belief in witches in an attempt to avoid such errors in the future.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 October 2009 04:53:42AM 2 points [-]

or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.

For bad weather? As in... 3^^^3 days of sleet is worse than 50 years of torture?

Comment author: arfle 03 August 2010 05:53:26AM *  7 points [-]

Bad weather, as in 'rain that rots your crops and causes famine', 'wind that takes the roof off your house', 'blizzards that kill your livestock', etc...

I suspect that 300 days of sleet might have an effect, even now.

Comment author: Technologos 02 November 2009 10:22:00AM 1 point [-]

My Cthulhu, yes. 3^^^3 days of sleet is so far beyond my normal conceptions of badness that I'm not sure a dozen lifetimes of torture would be enough.

3^^^3 is a very large number.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 November 2009 10:42:05AM *  0 points [-]
  • 3^^^3 is a very large number
  • Trivial things can be horrendous if there are 3^^^3 of them.
  • Things that require a large number like 3^^^3 of them in order to be horrendous are trivial things.
  • It is implied that bringing bad weather is a relatively trivial thing.
  • There are other things that are worse than bad weather, per victim and instance, like torture.
  • Saying "if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did" is a little bit funny if the crime is bad weather.
Comment author: Technologos 02 November 2009 11:04:28AM 0 points [-]

Agreed. My previous post probably reads more seriously than intended.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 25 October 2009 05:25:33AM 15 points [-]

Well, bad enough weather in an agricultural society is murder.

Comment author: caiuscamargarus 24 October 2009 11:34:47PM *  10 points [-]

The kind of epistemology that allows you to be that certain about something so false is immoral.

To wit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5cFKpjRnXE&feature=player_embedded

Comment author: SirBacon 24 October 2009 05:21:32PM 1 point [-]

And when one goeth through fire for his teaching--what doth that prove? Verily, it is more when one's teaching cometh out of one's own burning!

-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist

Comment author: ABranco 24 October 2009 03:59:33AM 11 points [-]

Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts. —Harvard economist Henry Rosovsky

Comment author: ABranco 24 October 2009 03:57:34AM 7 points [-]

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. —Mark Twain

Comment author: ABranco 24 October 2009 03:56:03AM *  10 points [-]

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. —Avicenna (980–1037 AD)

Comment author: ABranco 24 October 2009 03:16:15AM 7 points [-]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. —Daniel Moyniham

Comment author: wedrifid 24 October 2009 06:23:33PM 1 point [-]

That's what my government told me when I discovered the phone tap.

Comment author: ABranco 24 October 2009 03:13:44AM *  12 points [-]

It does not matter how frequently something succeeds if failure is too costly to bear. —Nicholas Nassim Taleb

(i.e.: don't forget to put, in your utility functions, the damn appropriate weight of those highly-improbable-but-high-negative-impact tragedies!)

Comment author: sark 24 December 2010 04:55:21PM 2 points [-]

It is really the improbability of black swans that we underestimate, not their impact. The tails are fatter than we think.

Comment author: MBlume 24 October 2009 01:19:02AM 6 points [-]

You must engage in these internal dialogues all the time, and you must let yourself lose the arguments gracefully. Writing may be a game of solitaire, but it isn’t a game at which you can cheat.

-Theodore Cheney, Getting the Words Right

Comment author: hegemonicon 23 October 2009 10:30:34PM *  1 point [-]

the human mind is trained by the knowledge imparted to it and the direction given to its ideas. Only what is great can make it great; the little can only make it little.

-Carl von Clausewitz

Comment author: spriteless 23 October 2009 10:29:00PM 11 points [-]

Since all things related to akrasia and self motivation are relevant here:

"As a final incentive before giving up a difficult task, try to imagine it successfully accomplished by someone you violently dislike." -K. Zenios

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 23 October 2009 02:18:17PM 2 points [-]

The carting of manure had to begin earlier, so that everything would be finished before the early mowing. The far field had to be ploughed continually, so as to keep it fallow. The hay was to be got in, not on half shares with the peasants, but by hired workers.

The steward listened attentively and obviously made an effort to approve of the master's suggestions; but all the same he had that hopeless and glum look, so familiar to Levin and always so irritating to him. This look said: "That's all very well, but it's as God grants."

Nothing so upset Levin as this tone. But it was a tone common to all stewards, as many of them as he had employed. They all had the same attitude toward his proposals, and therefore he now no longer got angry, but became upset and felt himself still more roused to fight this somehow elemental force for which he could find no other name than "as God grants", and which was continually opposed to him.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "Anna Karenina"

Comment author: billswift 24 October 2009 04:02:37PM *  0 points [-]

I think fatalism may be a key moral failing from which many others, such as carelessness and an indifference to the suffering of others, spring. Fatalism is more common, I think, than many others seem to believe. It does not need to be gloomy as the Slavic versions, think of the words to Que Sera, Sera; "whatever will be, will be".

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 23 October 2009 08:55:32AM 21 points [-]

When things are hard to understand, people who suspect they're nonsense generally keep quiet.

-- Paul Graham

Comment author: cousin_it 23 October 2009 11:03:17AM *  5 points [-]

Upvoted because it echoes my attitude towards your and Eliezer's ideas on decision theory, except I don't keep quiet.

Comment author: epistememe 23 October 2009 06:14:48AM 6 points [-]

The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands. -Oscar Wilde

Comment author: epistememe 23 October 2009 06:03:28AM 6 points [-]

There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth…not going all the way, and not starting.

Buddha

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 05:55:18PM 6 points [-]

Well, at least Buddha started. If he'd gone a bit further along that particular road he may have added:

  • Going the wrong way.
  • Making sacrifices to further a journey along the road to truth that do not give commensurate reward.
  • Trying to go further or faster than you are able and damaging your existing progress in the process.
  • Building (and continuing to build) your model of truth on inefficient foundations.
  • Spending resources (time, money, attention) on truth seeking now when such resources could have been used to generate far more resources for truth production later on.
  • Learning low value truth before higher relevance truth.
  • Assuming that it is possible to go all the way on the road to truth. Apart from the potential for ever more precision, every moment that passes allows matter to slip out of the reach of your future light cone. So if you manage to grab all the truth in one direction you're probably never going to get the chance to build an accurate model of the other extreme.
Comment author: Matt_Simpson 23 October 2009 03:42:45AM 2 points [-]

It seems thus impossible that any question about the nature or character of particular sensory qualities should ever arise which is not a question about the differences from (or relations to) other sensory qualities; and the extent to which the effects of its occurrence differ from the effects of the occurrence of any other qualities determines the whole of its character.

To ask beyond this for the explanation of some absolute attribute of sensory qualities seems to be to ask for something which by definition cannot manifest itself in any differences in the consequences which will follow because this rather than any other quality has occurred. Such a factor, however, could by definition not be of relevance to any scientific problem. The 'absolute' quality seems to be unexplainable because there is nothing to explain, because absolute, if it has any meaning at all, can only mean that the attribute which is so described has no scientific significance.

--F. A. Hayek, The Sensory Order (never terse)

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 23 October 2009 07:46:36PM 0 points [-]

I guess Hayek is to opaque here to be quotable?

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 23 October 2009 11:13:52PM 1 point [-]

It is opaque. If I'm reading it right, it's a functionalist argument against the concept of qualia, much as Dennett makes here.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 24 October 2009 12:44:06AM 1 point [-]

More or less. It's about a half-step away from invoking occam's razor to finish the job.

Comment author: Theist 23 October 2009 03:01:47AM 5 points [-]

"I can't see it, so you must be wrong."

my four-year-old

Comment author: Patrick 23 October 2009 12:33:43AM 17 points [-]

"Thus Aristotle laid it down that a heavy object falls faster than a light one does. The important thing about this idea is not that he was wrong, but that it never occurred to Aristotle to check it." Albert Szent-Györgyi de Nagyrápolt, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Comment author: ArjenD 24 October 2009 08:27:51AM *  6 points [-]

I checked Aristotle's 'On the Heavens' and 'Physics'. Nowhere could I find him saying that a heavy object falls faster than a light one. Aren't it the Aristotelian scholars who said that and who are to blame? Aristotle distinguished relative weight (our mass) and absolute weight (our mass density) and gives practical examples to check that denser objects move faster downwards in water than less dense objects, if the objects have the same shape.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 12 January 2011 02:31:45AM 1 point [-]

Aristotle really said it, in Heavens 4.2:

For any two portions of fire, small or great, will exhibit the same ratio of solid to void, but the upward movement of the greater is quicker than that of the less, just as the downward movement of a mass of gold or lead, or of any other body endowed with weight, is quicker in proportion to its size.

Note that he take the extreme position that heavier objects fall faster, not just denser! This claim is robust against translation errors since he is keeping the material fixed. I have not been able to find the passage you mention, though I did find a discussion of objects falling slower in water than air.

Comment author: gwern 31 October 2009 03:08:13AM *  3 points [-]

It's also worth noting that when you do Galileo's Tower of Pisa experiment, the heavier object does land first. (You think you release them at the same time, but you don't - your muscles let the heavier object go first.)

I find sometimes we here denigrate our distant predecessors too much; I have heard well-educated people call the Greeks fools for rejecting heliocentrism, despite the fact that the Greeks had powerful arguments against heliocentrism like the lack of stellar parallax, or we mock them for the 5 elements, despite the incredible feat of devising atomism just by considering basic logical paradoxes caused by alternative ontologies.

Comment author: wedrifid 31 October 2009 03:16:59AM 0 points [-]

You think you release them at the same time, but you don't.

And even if you do, there is air to consider.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 23 October 2009 01:28:58AM *  10 points [-]

A good point - but also note that, when Galileo argued against Artistotelian physics in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he set forth instead the idea of the inertial reference frame - but Galileo also never felt the need to perform an experiment to verify that his shipboard "experiments" would work as he predicted. Both the wrong conclusion, and the right conclusion, were arrived at via thought-experiment. And when Einstein took the next step by proposing the special theory of relativity, that too was a thought-experiment with no validation.

Comment author: komponisto 24 October 2009 06:11:25AM 4 points [-]

In fact, one can go further, because Aristotle's conclusion was presumably arrived at in the first place through observation of everyday experience (indeed, it almost seems wrong to attribute it specifically to Aristotle since it is simply the "common sense" view of most of humanity, before and since). So here we arguably have an example of a thought experiment successfully refuting an empirically-derived hypothesis.

Comment author: RobinZ 23 October 2009 12:41:29AM 1 point [-]

Just out of curiosity: do you know the origin of that quote? I've tried to find the citation before, but been unable.

Comment author: hirvinen 23 October 2009 12:15:54AM *  2 points [-]

(approximate, my translation)

Blessed are those who believe without seeing. Who wants to be blessed when they could see.

-- Esa Lappi, my high school math teacher when showing us the proof of some theorem.

Comment author: randallsquared 23 October 2009 02:57:27AM 0 points [-]

Er, if you believe in being blessed to begin with, it's clearly better than seeing.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 03:10:50AM 11 points [-]

Lies!

Blessed just gives you a +1 to attack while sight gives you 2 AC, half speed, -4 search, automatically failed spot checks and the 50% miss chance on every attack from total concealment!

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 October 2009 11:54:10PM 8 points [-]

Ph.D. comics no.1173

The script:

A grad student in humanities has been called before a hearing to justify his existence.

Student: "It's hard to explain monetarily, but how can you put a price tag on the human soul?"

Student: "The humanities help us appreciate beauty and grow as individuals."

Student: "What good are science and technology if we don't ask ourselves the question, what does it mean to be a human being?"

Chair: "So how's the answer coming along?"

Student: "Oh no, we just ask the question, not actually answer it."

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 01:58:19AM 2 points [-]

... and those that do happen to answer the question are excommunicated for heresy.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 October 2009 11:51:02PM 17 points [-]

"Everything is open to questioning. That does not mean all answers are equally valid."

-- Kelvin Throop

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 October 2009 11:48:39PM 18 points [-]

"There is a superstition in avoiding superstition, when men think to do best if they go furthest from the superstition formerly received."

-- Francis Bacon

Comment author: CronoDAS 23 October 2009 04:53:44AM 2 points [-]

Indeed. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 October 2009 11:47:47PM 7 points [-]

"A theory which cannot be mortally endangered cannot be alive."

W. A. H. Rushton, quoted in J.R. Platt, "Strong Inference", Science vol.146, n.3642, 1964.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 October 2009 11:31:05PM 9 points [-]

"Experience does not ever err, it is only your judgement that errs in promising itself results which are not caused by your experiments."

Leonardo Da Vinci

Comment author: Bindbreaker 22 October 2009 11:17:14PM 5 points [-]

"My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there."

Charles F. Kettering

Comment author: Theist 23 October 2009 12:02:13AM 1 point [-]

"Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives."

The Amazing Criswell

Comment author: Tom_Talbot 22 October 2009 10:46:16PM 7 points [-]

Besides porking (really) hot babes, flipping out, wailing on guitars, and cutting off heads, a ninja has to train. They have to meditate ALL THE TIME. But most importantly, each morning a ninja should think about going a little crazier than the day before. Beyond thinking about going berserk, a ninja must, by definition, actually go berserk.

Robert Hamburger, REAL Ultimate Power, The Official Ninja Book

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2009 10:58:47PM 1 point [-]

Therefore, o mighty Ninjas, who grant awesomeness to fans, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something crazier than which nothing crazier can be imagined.

For if there were something crazier than a ninja, that ninja would every day grow in craziness and then that something would not be so; even a fool would agree to this. This is the greater ninja law - for every badass, there must be some even crazily more badass badass. But it would be crazier for the Ultimate Ninja to exist than to not exist, because that would be so totally sweet when he flipped out and cut the universe's head off. Thus, we must bow to the greater ninja law & high-five the Ultimate Ninja, less he shuriken us with galaxies. Truly, Ultimate Ninja, you are so crazy that you cannot even be thought to not exist!

Comment author: Tom_Talbot 22 October 2009 09:59:33PM 7 points [-]

I won’t teach a man who is not eager to learn, nor will I explain to one incapable of forming his own ideas. Nor have I anything more to say to those who, after I have made clear one corner of the subject, cannot deduce the other three.

Confucius

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 26 October 2009 11:44:21PM 0 points [-]

i.e. if you don't agree with me, you're stupid.

Comment author: RobinZ 26 October 2009 11:49:29PM 0 points [-]

On the contrary: an intelligent student can deduce the consequences of a thesis without believing it -- one must, to form a reliable judgement of its accuracy.

Comment author: Tom_Talbot 22 October 2009 09:36:11PM 9 points [-]

The unwillingness to tolerate or respect any social forces which are not recognizable as the product of intelligent design, which is so important a cause of the present desire for comprehensive economic planning, is indeed only one aspect of a more general movement. We meet the same tendency in the field of morals and conventions, in the desire to substitute an artificial for the existing languages, and in the whole modern attitude toward processes which govern the growth of knowledge. The belief that only a synthetic system of morals, an artificial language, or even an artificial society can be justified in an age of science, as well as the increasing unwillingness to bow before any moral rules whose utility is not rationally demonstrated, or to conform with conventions whose rationale is not known, are all manifestations of the same basic view which wants all social activity to be recognizably part of a single coherent plan. They are the results of that same rationalistic "individualism" which wants to see in everything the product of conscious individual reason.

Friedrich Hayek, Individualism: True and False

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 October 2009 02:34:39AM 1 point [-]

They are the results of that same rationalistic "individualism" which wants to see in everything the product of conscious individual reason.

I lean libertarian, and have long worn the "yay Hayek!" mantle, but, looking back... It seems like he's unfairly using a) poorly-grounded attempts at large-scale social planning, to justify b) a philosophical, universal belief in the superiority of self-organizing systems over designed ones (i.e. even in building a robot).

Eliezer Yudkowsky has previous criticized b) in the context of Rodney Brooks's preferred robotic architecture. In some contexts, a centrally-planned mechanism which is the product of conscious individual reason is a better way to go. The inferiority of planned economies is not due to the very general superiority of self-organization that Hayek is claiming here.

Comment author: billswift 24 October 2009 04:18:10PM 0 points [-]

The problem is in the size of the system, relative to human cognition. Using specialization and management can increase the size of the system we can manage, but not without limit. That is why a self-improving AI is a potential threat, it can increase the size of the system it can manage well beyond what we can understand. It is also why I don't think provably Friendly AI is possible (though I hope I am wrong about that) and that GAI will be developed incrementally from specialized AIs or from general but less than intelligent systems. Also it is what gives me some hope for intelligence amplification to keep up with GAIs, at least for a while; we don't need to start from scratch, just keep improving the size of systems we can manage.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 October 2009 04:42:11PM *  2 points [-]

Control and knowledge don't care about scale. One can learn stuff about whole galaxies by observing them. When you want to "manage" an AI, the complexity of your concern is restricted to the complexity of your wish.

Comment author: billswift 24 October 2009 08:45:33PM 0 points [-]

Size in describing a system isn't about scale, it's the number of interacting components and the complexity of their interactions. And I don't understand what you mean in your second sentence, it doesn't make sense to me.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 October 2009 09:27:51PM *  0 points [-]

A galaxy also isn't "just" about scale: it does contain more stuff, more components (but how do you know that and what does it mean?). Second sentence: using a telescope to make precise observations.

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 23 October 2009 02:02:18PM 5 points [-]

I've run across that argument a couple times, and my reply has been that all economies are planned. Some are planned by a small number of dumb humans with inadequate data, and others are planned by a very large number of dumb humans with more data, and the latter are called market economies.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 30 December 2011 02:11:28AM -1 points [-]

Also a planned economy can choose to use markets when it predicts they will achieve the desired result cost effectively.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 02:03:15AM 1 point [-]

Really wish Friedrich used more paragraphs and less commas.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 22 October 2009 09:34:43PM 1 point [-]

The statement that all of us are purportedly able to coherently conceive or imagine a certain situation - for instance, an imitation man or a zombie - is rather trivial from a philosophical point of view because ultimately it is just an empirical claim about the history of the brain and its functional architecture. It is a statement about a world that is phenomenally possible for human beings. It is not a statement about the modal strength of the relationship between physical and phenomenal properties; logical possibility (or necessity) is not implied by phenomenological possibility (or necessity). From the simple fact that beings like ourselves are able to phenomenally simulate a certain apparently possible world, it does not follow that a consistent or even only an empirically plausible description of this world exists. -- Thomas Metzinger

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 October 2009 11:33:43PM 9 points [-]

In fewer words: we can imagine things that cannot exist.

Comment author: Neil 24 October 2009 03:24:48PM *  1 point [-]

I think he's saying something more limiting - we cannot tell if we imagine things that cannot exist.

or even as far as - we cannot tell if things cannot exist. :)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 October 2009 05:57:11AM 2 points [-]

In even fewer words: we can imagine the illogical.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 23 October 2009 11:26:52PM 1 point [-]

What a fun game: Impossibilities are imaginable.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2009 09:21:59PM *  4 points [-]

"Now I'll never know if I was right."

-- final words of Adric, in Dr. Who, "Earthshock", on realizing that he's about to crash into the Earth

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2009 09:51:15PM 0 points [-]

I think that might need some context - was his prediction that he would die on crashing or something?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 23 October 2009 01:38:40AM 5 points [-]

The specifics of what he was doing aren't important. (He had been trying to break an encrypted password-equivalent to the flight control computer, and had just entered in what he believed to be the solution, when the computer was destroyed, leaving him facing certain death.)

I just like the idea that what upset him most about dying was that he wouldn't be able to finish the problem he was working on.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2009 09:15:03PM 10 points [-]

The master mathematician sat in his private room and pushed the papers from him. His calculations were already finished. In a small white phial there still remained a little of the drug that had kept him awake and active for four long nights. Each day, serene, explicit, patient as ever, he had given his lecture to his students, and then had come back at once to this momentous calculation. His face was grave, a little drawn and hectic from his drugged activity. For some time he seemed lost in thought. Then he went to the window, and the blind went up with a click. Half way up the sky, over the clustering roofs, chimneys and steeples of the city, hung the star.

He looked at it as one might look into the eyes of a brave enemy. "You may kill me," he said after a silence. "But I can hold you--and all the universe for that matter--in the grip of this little brain. I would not change. Even now."

-- H.G. Wells, "The Star", 1897

Comment author: Yvain 22 October 2009 08:53:47PM *  21 points [-]

A great many years ago, a couple of Jehovah Witnesses bit off more than they could chew with my grandmother. During the unsolicited conversation one of them remarked, "Only God can make a rainbow". To which my grandmother-who was watering her plants at the time-said, "Nonsense!", and created her own rainbow with a spray of water from the hose. Family lore has it that was the end of the conversation.

-- seen on Livejournal

Comment author: roland 22 October 2009 08:46:50PM *  8 points [-]

A behavioral policy based on an inside strategy permits the alcoholic to sit at the bar and rehearse the reasons to abstain. An outside strategy identifies a principle or rule of conduct that produces the most accurate or desirable available outcome, and sticks to that rule despite the subjective pull to abandon the principle. A behavioral policy based on an outside strategy recommends that you avoid the bar in the first place.

-- Michael Bishop, 50 Years of Successful Predictive Modeling Should Be Enough: Lessons for Philosophy of Science

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 22 October 2009 08:10:28PM *  5 points [-]

"Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 239–251

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 10:41:45PM 2 points [-]

Awesome! I didn't know you could think away chronic pain!

Comment author: MichaelVassar 23 October 2009 06:45:46AM 3 points [-]

You can. Just think about the details of the pain rather than the pain itself. Rest your attention on what the pain draws your attention towards and the pain goes away.

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 15 November 2009 11:34:51PM *  2 points [-]

Awesome! I didn't know you could think away chronic pain!

You can. Just think about the details of the pain rather than the pain itself. Rest your attention on what the pain draws your attention towards and the pain goes away.

I am interested enough in this suggestion to start tentatively practicing it. How many years have you been practicing it, Mike? Has anyone else with whom you have a personal relationship been practicing it for more than a year? Have you ever tried it on unwanted feeling states other than pain?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 23 October 2009 08:09:32AM 1 point [-]

Does this free up your attention for other things, or does the pain keep coming back?

Comment author: MichaelVassar 15 November 2009 04:29:53PM 0 points [-]

It stops coming back if its minor pain. You have to try a few times and it isn't totally effective when you aren't concentrating for more serious pain.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 23 October 2009 01:44:25AM *  0 points [-]

You need to study your Mary Baker Eddy.

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2009 11:00:03PM 0 points [-]

Well, if you could show us some chronic pain in the absence of any thinking...

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 11:05:40PM 2 points [-]

the quote refers to thinking it good or bad, not thinking simpliciter

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2009 11:33:23PM 0 points [-]

Then it is saying nothing about 'thinking away' the chronic pain. Pick which interpretation: either it's that thinking in general precedes pain, or that it precedes any assessment of goodness; neither supports your dismissal. (It may help your attempted criticism to switch from Shakespeare's ambiguous old English to a similar statement from the Stoics or Epicureans.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 October 2009 02:14:14AM 1 point [-]

I don't have much choice in whether to consider pain good.

*Sigh*, do we have another candidate for experiencing real physical pain before these blithe dismissals?

Comment author: gwern 23 October 2009 02:43:03PM *  1 point [-]

I don't have much choice in whether to consider pain good.

I assume you do this every time you exercise. Again, good doesn't mean not-painful; a change in beliefs will flip some given from 'good' to 'bad'. A searing pain is bad if you have no reason to endure; it's good if you think the alternative is the gom jabbar. (Is this really so difficult or controversial a point?)

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 October 2009 02:48:21PM 0 points [-]

No, it's just that to shore up your position, you have to diminish the point of the quote into triviality.

You can consider the long term effects of the pain to be good. You can be trained to get a dopamine release during a certain kind of pain. You cannot deem the pain itself good. A belief that the pain is good does not change the pain, and only exists through self-deception.

And please burn every copy of Dune you have. ;-)

Comment deleted 24 October 2009 08:06:59PM [-]
Comment author: SilasBarta 24 October 2009 08:23:02PM 5 points [-]

The non-masochist also said:

You can be trained to get a dopamine release during a certain kind of pain.

I don't know if you were joking, but masochists only enjoy a very narrow kind of pain. It's a misconception that masochists enjoy all, or even many kinds of pain.

Comment author: gwern 23 October 2009 04:30:17PM 1 point [-]

Pain is just pain; it's neither good nor bad. Good and bad are only judgments, which are thoughts, and as such are determined by one's mind & beliefs. I think this is a profound truth unappreciated by many, and by no means trivial.

And please burn every copy of Dune you have

Over my dry dessicated remains!

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 October 2009 07:06:00PM -1 points [-]

Pain is the raw "quale" of badness. You can deem some future goal to be good, and worth the pain, but you can't judge pain good, except in an abstract, meaningless sense, disconnected from any implications for your actions.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2009 09:29:27PM 0 points [-]

What's this supposed to mean, in context?

Comment author: DanArmak 22 October 2009 10:22:53PM *  2 points [-]

Fuller quote (lines 243-251):

Hamlet: Denmark's a prison.

Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.

Hamlet: Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

It doesn't seem especially deep to me...

Comment author: ArjenD 22 October 2009 07:23:19PM 6 points [-]

Mathematics is rational, not reasonable.

-- Terry Padden, in "Ultimately, in Physics the Rational shall become Reasonable!"

Comment author: roland 22 October 2009 07:14:13PM *  7 points [-]

Our minds are like inmates, captive to our biology, unless we manage a cunning escape.

-- Nassim Taleb

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 07:18:41PM 0 points [-]

How does one escape from biology? This seems more closely related to transhumanism than rationality.

Comment author: hirvinen 22 October 2009 11:40:59PM 3 points [-]

By applying software patches that detect hardware faults and compensate or work around them.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 02:19:10AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: roland 22 October 2009 08:57:05PM *  0 points [-]

How does one escape from his biases?

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 09:33:52PM 0 points [-]

With the biologically-instantiated powers of one's reason, I expect.

Comment author: roland 22 October 2009 11:18:44PM 0 points [-]

I think that's what Taleb wanted to say.

Comment author: roland 22 October 2009 07:12:43PM *  17 points [-]

People often lack the discipline to adhere to a superior strategy that doesn't "feel" right. Reasoning in a way that sometimes "feels" wrong takes discipline.

-- Michael Bishop, Epistemology and the psychology of human judgement

Comment author: MichaelBishop 24 October 2009 09:24:04PM 1 point [-]

For the record, I'm not the Michael Bishop that so expressed this insightful point.

Comment author: PeterS 22 October 2009 07:09:39PM *  7 points [-]

Dear Meg,

Please don't try to trisect the angle. . . It's not a matter of being clever.

Ian Stewart, Letters to a Young Mathematician

Comment author: CronoDAS 23 October 2009 04:45:55AM 1 point [-]

It's easy to trisect an angle. Just use a protractor. ;)

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 09:03:17PM 3 points [-]

What's even worse is trying to get that message to happen.

I confess, in my early internet days, I thought I figured out how to trisect an angle, and sent a sketch of it to a random math prof in Canada, asking for a prompt reply.

And you know what? I didn't get one! Probably the most polite reply one could reasonably expect.

Comment author: gwern 31 October 2009 08:31:26PM 0 points [-]

There are ways to trisect the angle; did your method break the rules and use one of them, or was it just wrong?

Comment author: SilasBarta 31 October 2009 11:54:08PM 0 points [-]

It was just wrong.

Comment author: Technologos 31 October 2009 08:51:30PM 0 points [-]

I think he meant that he tried to trisect an angle in general, by construction; this has been proven impossible.

Comment author: Technologos 31 October 2009 08:53:15PM 0 points [-]

Which is perhaps what you meant by "break the rules" (of construction), by using a marked ruler, for instance.

Comment author: gwern 01 November 2009 02:10:34PM 1 point [-]

Right. There are some constructions like Archimedes's use of a marked ruler (which is covered, actually, in the 'Means to trisect angles by going outside the Greek framework' section) which work correctly & are not immediately obviously breaking the rules. So I had to ask before I could know whether he had broken the rules or broken his proof (if you follow me).

Comment author: Alicorn 01 November 2009 02:40:01PM 1 point [-]

Couldn't you trisect a right angle by making an equilateral triangle with one of the right angle's lines for a side, then bisecting that angle of the triangle? It wouldn't generalize to other angles, but you wouldn't need a ruler.

Comment author: cousin_it 01 November 2009 04:01:34PM 3 points [-]

Of course you can trisect some angles, just not all of them. For example, you can't trisect the angle of an equilateral triangle (60 degrees).

Comment author: gwern 02 November 2009 04:25:17AM 1 point [-]

Just like you can solve the Halting Problem - for particular Turing Machines. The interesting impossibility results are always general.

Comment author: cousin_it 02 November 2009 10:05:49AM *  0 points [-]

The analogy isn't perfect because the halting problem can in principle be solved for each particular machine, but trisection can't be solved for each particular angle.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 08:23:52PM 7 points [-]

I don't know if I like this one. One ought to try some things, if for no other reason to learn which sources of information are reliable.

Comment author: cousin_it 22 October 2009 06:04:21PM 35 points [-]

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

-- Winston Churchill

Comment author: James_Miller 22 October 2009 05:33:12PM 31 points [-]

You want to learn from experience, but you want to learn from other people’s experience when you can.

Warren Buffett

Comment author: childofbaud 25 October 2009 11:03:22PM *  8 points [-]

On a similar note, but from a different author:

Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for.

—Socrates

Comment author: gwern 19 December 2010 11:03:54PM *  1 point [-]

<ChrisBradley> Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for. -[[Socrates]]

<silsor> ChrisBradley, that could be rewritten for us - Employ your time in improving other men's writings.

(From irc://freenode.net#wikipedia & immortalized on m:bash.)

Comment author: loqi 22 October 2009 05:31:07PM 16 points [-]

Perfecting oneself is as much unlearning as it is learning.

-- Edsger Dijkstra

Comment author: childofbaud 25 October 2009 05:37:19PM *  3 points [-]

On a similar note, from the same author:

Breaking out of bad habits, rather than acquiring new ones, is the toughest aspect of learning.

—Edsger Dijkstra (EWD1036)

Comment author: James_Miller 22 October 2009 05:27:17PM 1 point [-]

All that glitters is not gold

Unknown Origin

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 22 October 2009 11:17:55PM *  4 points [-]

That is, indeed, the idiomatic form. But it should properly be "Not all that glitters is gold", because gold does, in fact, glitter, and therefore some things which glitter are indeed gold. And, of course, some are diamond.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 October 2009 01:28:52PM *  2 points [-]

Usually, sentences of the form "all that glitters is not gold" mean "not (all that glitters is gold)". "All is not lost" does not mean that nothing got any worse. While it may seem weird for "not" to semantically modify the entire sentence while it syntactically modifies only "gold", we do this all the time using other words: "we ate nothing" does not mean "we ate X" for X equal to "nothing"; it means "for all X, not (we ate X)". For fun, see Wikipedia.

To imitate a friend of mine, how dare you try to make English make more sense.

Comment author: komponisto 24 October 2009 06:32:32AM 1 point [-]

"we ate nothing" does not mean "we ate X" for X equal to "nothing"; it means "for all X, not (we ate X)"

But surely "we ate X" can mean "X = {Y: We ate Y}", as in "we ate a set of fried chicken legs" -- and this would allow one to analyze "we ate nothing" to mean "we ate X" for X = emptyset.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 October 2009 07:15:46PM 0 points [-]

Let "nothing" be the empty set, and say that "we ate X" means that X is the set of all things that we ate? How would that handle the sentence "No robot took off its hat"? My semantics say that that's equivalent to "for no robot X, (X took off X's hat)"; yours would say something like "(the set of no robots) took off (some value that isn't a set of hats)".

Comment author: CronoDAS 22 October 2009 05:26:30PM *  6 points [-]

You got to have a dream,

If you don't have a dream,

How you gonna have a dream come true?

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 04:46:10PM *  28 points [-]

The only man I know who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my measurements anew each time he sees me. The rest go on with their old measurements and expect me to fit them.

-- George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate (1856-1950)

Edit: The full citation is to his 1903 play Man and superman: a comedy and a philosophy, where the character John Tanner ("M.I.R.C., Member of the Idle Rich Class") says:

Yes, because to be treated as a boy was to be taken on the old footing. I had become a new person ; and those who knew the old person laughed at me. The only man who behaved sensibly was my tailor : he took my measure anew every time he saw me, whilst all the rest went on with their old measurements and expected them to fit me.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 04:45:27PM *  12 points [-]

There is an unfortunate optical illusion - a variant on the Doppler effect - that besets all frauds. It's unfortunate, because it has the effect of exacerbating the pecuniary losses that fraud victims endure, by unfairly leaving them, like many rape victims, irrationally ashamed of themselves.

The Doppler principle we posit holds that as a victim approaches a swindler, he sees nothing but green lights. But as soon as he realizes that his money is gone, he spins around and beholds, as if by magic, bright red flags as far as the eye can see.

-- Roger Parloff, senior editor, "More brazen than Madoff?", Fortune, 2009-03-31

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 04:44:32PM *  25 points [-]

[I]n my opinion nothing occurs contrary to nature except the impossible, and that never occurs.

-- Sagredo, "Two New Sciences" (1914 translation), Galileo Galilei

Comment author: RobinZ 23 October 2009 12:45:43AM 2 points [-]

...I am such a clod. Please adjust your votes accordingly.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 08:21:59PM 8 points [-]

Okay, I'm over my quota, but I really have to reproduce this from an ensuing discussion between myself and Michael Vassar, in which Michael Vassar commented that Galileo seemed to have accomplished his feats through character traits other than ultra-high-g:

"Wait, I just called myself 'not that smart, like Galileo'. What does that do to my Crackpot Index?!" -- Michael Vassar

Comment author: jimmy 22 October 2009 09:03:32PM 0 points [-]

What's the point of a quota if you're getting mostly upvotes?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2009 09:32:51PM 3 points [-]

Perhaps that is the point of the quota?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 22 October 2009 09:44:55PM *  4 points [-]

That would be diversity and restraint.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 23 October 2009 01:42:32AM 7 points [-]

Perhaps (he clarifies) one of the points of the quota is to prevent people from scoring lots of easy karma points via rationality quotes, which are the easiest way to get karma.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 08:17:41PM 1 point [-]

...I had no idea the art of rationality got that advanced that early!

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 08:41:44PM 1 point [-]

Hey, Darwin predicted and explained punctuated equilibrium all the way back in The Origin of the Species. It's remarkable how often the old masters hit a target generations ahead of their time. Or rather, it would be if I didn't already know that human beings don't as a rule draw the full benefit from the evidence at hand - which implies a small variation in the accuracy of the extrapolation leads to startling insight.

(Not having read the Latin - chiefly thanks to not being fluent in the Latin - I can't swear it's a perfect translation, but I saw it in the book and had to quote it.)

Comment author: FiftyTwo 29 December 2011 07:10:55PM 4 points [-]

Theres a sampling issue there, no-one talks about all the things Darwin thought of that were wrong.

Comment author: RobinZ 29 December 2011 10:35:37PM 0 points [-]

Indeed. You'll note that I did not quote Galileo's 1623 article declaring that comets were a sublunary (within the sphere of the Moon's orbit around the Earth) phenomenon, for example.

Still, I would be willing to wager that if you had modern biologists compare, say, Darwin's writings from the voyage of the Beagle to his death even to those of contemporaries such as Alfred Russell Wallace - an independent inventor of the theory of natural selection - he would fare extremely well.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 30 December 2011 01:48:25AM 1 point [-]

Do you attribute that to his greater experience and access to data, or some innately better understanding of biology?

Comment author: RobinZ 30 December 2011 06:26:06AM 0 points [-]

I think he was actually less biased. I was actually just reading John McPhee's Looking For a Ship, and McPhee quotes Darwin discussing the geology of the Valparaíso region, and notes that Darwin divines the processes that created the formations of that terrain essentially correctly ... before plate tectonics was even a theory with a name in the scientific literature. It is of course impossible to separate out to what extent his results are improved by his hesitance in publishing data without overwhelming evidence, but I would guess that his rationality was significantly above par for his era.

Comment author: gwern 31 October 2009 08:29:49PM 1 point [-]

There is a quote, though I cannot find it now, to the effect that 'It is an old parlor game among American philosophers to show that Peirce thought of something first.'

Comment author: thomblake 02 March 2010 03:46:03PM 1 point [-]

Peirce thought of something first

But he did!

Comment author: gwern 02 March 2010 04:26:40PM 1 point [-]

It's funny because it's partly true - he did an impressive amount, and stuff which has yet to be dug out of his scores of volumes - but some Peirce fans take it too far (I had one professor who the quote applied well to).

Comment author: Nominull 22 October 2009 04:32:55PM 9 points [-]

Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

-- Unknown

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 23 October 2009 02:03:07PM 2 points [-]

What about the moment when you realize you've made a significant practical mistake?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 08:13:33PM 2 points [-]

Why is this being voted down? I'm pretty sure Nominull didn't post the quote in order to endorse it as a normative sentiment. There's an ick reaction so you hit "Vote down"? But that's not what decides whether a quote is a good thing to have read!

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 09:07:41PM *  1 point [-]

I think the only ick reaction here is from my examples of experiences that are much more painful than any epistemic event.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 02:30:54AM 3 points [-]

(Agree, and add that) It is often more frustrating when I realise I am not wrong, can reliably reverse engineer the other's thought process, know that they will jump back to this error whenever an even tangentially related topic is discussed and I must now choose between rapport and reason. The death cry of mutual respect.

Comment author: eirenicon 22 October 2009 08:19:31PM 3 points [-]

Also, in general, the quote is accurate. While it is intellectually useful to be proven wrong, it is not really a pleasant feeling, because it's much nicer to have already been right. This is especially true if you are heavily invested in what you are wrong about, eg. a scientist who realizes his research was based on an erroneous premise will be happy to stop wasting time but will also feel pretty crappy about the time he's already wasted. It's not in our nature to be purely cerebral about such a devastating thing as being wrong can be.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 08:40:25PM 0 points [-]

No, the quote isn't accurate. There are lots more worse feelings than being wrong in an argument. If you can't think of one, start from here.

Comment author: eirenicon 22 October 2009 09:31:06PM 2 points [-]

Well, if you want to pick nits, a vacuum cleaner sucks more than realizing you're wrong in an argument.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 09:47:32PM *  2 points [-]

That's not picking nits; that's switching out a metaphorical definition mid-discussion for a more literal one, a species of "moving the goalposts".

This is picking nits.

Comment author: eirenicon 22 October 2009 10:08:28PM 2 points [-]

Well, I don't feel bad at all, so obviously you haven't won this argument yet. Unless I'm wrong, of course.