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  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.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: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:07:32PM 5 points [-]

Why is it believed that what pictures you can make in your head, and what is true or necessarily true, are terribly well connected? If there is not a substantial connection between the (necessarily) true and your conception of the (necessarily) true, then Hume's argument goes up in smoke.

-- Aretae

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 22 October 2009 04:43:42PM *  6 points [-]

I wasn't especially impressed by Aretae's reasoning. For example,

Why would I not believe that the future will be different from the past? . . . This is silly. Bayes disposes of that rather rapidly. Unless one embraces radical skepticism (why should I believe in the past at all?), Bayesian statistics takes both theses (the future is different than/same as the past) and applies updating. What is left standing is the future resembles the past.

You will not be able to perform this updating unless you have already assigned prior probabilities to propositions connecting the past to the future. That's why Bayesian updating will never get it right if you start out with the anti-induction prior. Hence, to address Hume's problem, you have to come up with a justification for preferring certain prior distributions. We may have good reasons for preferring those distributions that posit that the past is like the future, but, contra Aretae, those reasons are outside the scope of mere Bayesian updating.

ETA: Better link on anti-induction.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 October 2009 05:52:28AM 0 points [-]

Well that's why I quoted one part and not the other.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 23 October 2009 03:32:16PM 1 point [-]

I had trouble understanding the quote out of context. The first sentence is fine. But, despite a prior understanding of Hume's argument, I couldn't see how Aretae got from the first sentence to the conclusion that "Hume's argument goes up in smoke". On the contrary, Hume's point was that the connections we make in our minds might have little similarity to the actual connections, if any, that exist among things in the external world.

I had to go to the context to see that Aretae is making Hume out to be some kind of a-priorist. Aretae concludes that general arguments against a-priorists are therefore arguments against Hume. This is a bizarre misreading of Hume. Hume's problem of induction is itself an attack on a-priorism. He refers to a-priori arguments only to show that they do not suffice to justify induction. This was big news in a day when practically all intellectuals were a-priorists.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 07:39:25PM 3 points [-]

Yes, a good point. There's the famous argument that naturalism is self-defeating because e.g., "why should I trust a monkey brain?" But in order to get to where you are today, each organism in your ancestry must have had enough harmony with nature's laws so as to harness them for its sustenance and reproduction.

So there has to be some connection between the two.

Comment author: billswift 24 October 2009 05:01:43PM 1 point [-]

What else are you going to trust more? (Remember whatever you trust, and your trusting itself, depends on a "monkey brain".)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:11:55PM 3 points [-]

This is the moment that matters, and I refuse to look back on this day and say "maybe if I hadn't..."

-- Hybrid Theory

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:13:58PM 10 points [-]

I've never seen a UFO. When I went to places that were rumored to be haunted, nothing showed up. Two hours of intense staring didn't make my pencil move a single millimeter, and glaring at my classmate's head didn't reveal his thoughts to me, either. I couldn't help but get depressed at how normal the laws of physics were.

-- Kyon, The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 04:25:25PM *  2 points [-]

I've never seen a UFO.

Wow! He's been able to identify every flying object he's ever seen? Must be a boring fellow when stargazing!

I think he means he's never seen an alien spaceship...

Comment author: komponisto 22 October 2009 07:02:26PM 0 points [-]

Thank you.

Comment author: AllanCrossman 22 October 2009 07:10:03PM 1 point [-]

Must be a boring fellow when stargazing!

I'm not sure stars can be called "flying objects".

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 07:29:41PM *  3 points [-]

Well, you can't quite know if a skyward light is something flying near earth until you've identified it, can you? :-)

Comment author: AllanCrossman 22 October 2009 08:44:54PM 0 points [-]

Mmm. You can usually tell that something's a celestial object, and thus not a flying object, without being able to classify it further...

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 08:48:29PM *  3 points [-]

You've identified it in the relevant sense for the purposes for which the UFO classification was created.

Yikes, too much nesting!

The Air Force (or whatever) invented the classification UFO for an object they don't yet know how to respond to because of the current inability to identify it. Knowing that something is a far-off celestial object is sufficient identification in this context, making it no longer a UFO. [/pedant]

Bumper sticker: "UFOs are real; the Air Force doesn't exist!"

ETA: wait, that contradicts my original point. You know, just forget this last comment. Stars count as flying. They travel without touching a planet's ground. Deal with it. ;-)

Comment author: CannibalSmith 22 October 2009 09:40:57PM *  0 points [-]

Speaking of Haruhi, should I consume it in animated or text form? (If animated, what order?)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 October 2009 05:30:37AM 1 point [-]

This may be the only Japanese work of which I honestly couldn't say, but on the whole, I'd guess animated first.

Comment author: CannibalSmith 23 October 2009 02:56:48PM 0 points [-]

First? Are you implying that I should go through both ultimately? If yes, why?

Comment author: gwern 23 October 2009 02:39:01PM *  1 point [-]

I'd second Eliezer. You must start with animated, and watch it in Haruhi order. There is a very good reason that Kyoani broadcast it that way, and it improves on the novels in other respects.

(I withhold any assessment of season 2, however, because of Endless Eight; you may choose as you will whether to watch the anime or just read the Baka Tsuki fan translations.)

Comment author: CannibalSmith 23 October 2009 02:53:40PM *  0 points [-]

Because of Endless Eight? What about them?

My original intention was to wait for the pirates to finish plundering the 2009 version and watch that.

Comment author: gwern 23 October 2009 03:50:44PM 0 points [-]

Because of Endless Eight? What about them?

Some people are insulted enough by them they prefer to not watch season 2 at all.

Comment author: CannibalSmith 25 October 2009 02:33:30PM *  -1 points [-]

Adaptation decay? Discontinuity? Ah, yes, there it is (scroll to bottom)! Thanks for the heads up.

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2009 09:45:51PM 1 point [-]

So, in Haruhi, does Egan's law apply? Does it all add up to normality? :)

Comment author: Nominull 22 October 2009 10:25:56PM 2 points [-]

Are you aware of the anthropic principle?

Comment author: gwern 22 October 2009 10:52:06PM 1 point [-]

Yes; don't see how it applies.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 October 2009 05:31:21AM 1 point [-]

It's another quote. No, Haruhi's world does not add up to normality.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 02:55:23AM 1 point [-]

Two hours of intense staring didn't make my pencil move a single millimetre

Well of course not, you read far too many books for that to still work!

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:16:51PM 18 points [-]

Moral language persuades best when opinions are not yet formed, which is why writers of children’s literature can get away with saying things like, “Mr. Billings was an awful, horrible man with a heart of stone.” This sounds like a line from a children’s book because it employs persuasive methods that, though appropriate for children, would insult the intelligence of most adult readers.

Most moral discourse is the conversational equivalent of children’s literature. Disputants speak to one another—or, rather, at one another—as if their interlocutors failed to pay adequate attention on the day elementary morality was explained. Unaware of the projective nature of value, they marvel at their opponents’ blindness, their utter failure to see what is so perfectly obvious. Not knowing what else to do, they scold their opponents as if they were children, and scold them as if they were belligerent children when they fail to respond the first time.

What to do about this? Take a cue from good writers. Stick to the facts. Keep evaluative language to a minimum, and get rid of the most overtly judgmental, moralistic language.

-- Joshua Greene, The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality And What To Do About It

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 07:32:46PM 1 point [-]

Too bad the same thesis also makes poor inferences from poorly-designed studies of human moral reasoning.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 02:50:37AM 2 points [-]

What to do about this? Take a cue from good writers. Stick to the facts. Keep evaluative language to a minimum, and get rid of the most overtly judgmental, moralistic language.

More to the point, stick to the right facts, ask the right questions and use subtly judgemental language in a way that avoids the rudimentary defences against manipulation that most adults have.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2009 04:27:04PM 3 points [-]

In volunteer organizations, when someone was allowed to fail to teach them a lesson about their responsibilities, I do not ever remember them learning that lesson.

-- Matt Arnold

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 22 October 2009 06:13:31PM 3 points [-]

I would have been able to read that sentence correctly without context if it had a comma: "allowed to fail, to teach them a lesson."

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: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 05:12:33PM *  3 points [-]

Hm, what about being constipated with hemorrhoids?

ETA: No wait, how about this: same as above, but, assuming you're a male, with the intestines so full that they press against the prostate (basically the "core" of your pleasure/pain generator) and keep you from being able to urinate.

Then, top it off with a severe hangover headache.

Who would prefer being proven wrong to all of that? Me.

Comment author: Cyan 22 October 2009 05:37:02PM 2 points [-]

Yup, that's way worse.

... TMI?

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 06:24:52PM 1 point [-]

Hey, just suggesting a hypothetical...

There really are worse things in life than realizing you're wrong mid-argument.

Comment author: loqi 22 October 2009 05:25:32PM *  11 points [-]

That's a terrible quote. Being wrong is the best possible outcome of an argument, as it's the one with the highest expected knowledge gain (unless you're a hardcore altruist who doesn't value their own knowledge differently from anyone else's).

Comment author: Jack 22 October 2009 05:44:43PM *  2 points [-]

Does anyone know the origin of this notion (that being wrong is the best outcome of an argument?). It strikes me as basically a founding principle of rationality and I'd like to know the earliest public reference to/ discussion of it. Alternately, is this sentiment summarized in any good quotes? It is hugely important for Hegel but he isn't, you know, pithy.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 06:32:44PM *  6 points [-]

In information theory, there's the concept of the surprisal, which is the logarithm of the inverse of the expected probability of an event. The lower the probability, the higher the surprise(al). The higher the surprisal, the greater the information content.

(Intuitively, the less likely something is, the more you change your beliefs upon learning it.)

So, yeah, it's pretty enshrined in information theory. Entropy is equivalent to the (oxymoronic) "expected surprisal". That is, given a discrete probability distribution over events, the probability-weighted average surprisal is the entropy.

Incidentally, as part of a project to convert all of the laws of physics into information-theoretic form, I realized that the elastic energy of a deformable body tells you its probability of being in that state, and (by the above argument), it's information content. That means you can explain failure modes in terms of the component being forced to store more information than it's capable of.

Well, it's interesting to me.

Comment author: Jack 22 October 2009 06:41:29PM 0 points [-]

You seem like as good a person to ask this as any: Is there a good introduction to information theory out there? How would one start digging into the field?

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 06:55:30PM *  4 points [-]

To be quite honest, I only really started to study it after reading Eliezer Yudkowsky's Engines of Cognition, which connected it to what I know about thermodynamics. ( Two blog posts inspired by it.) So, like you, I'm an autodidact on the topic.

Most people would recommend David MacKay's downloadable book, which is written in a friendly, accessible tone. That helped a lot, but I also found it hard to follow at times. That may be due to not having a physical copy though. And it can't be beat as a technical reference or in terms of depth.

Personally, my path to learning about it was to basically read the Wikipedia articles on Information Theory and Kullback-Leibler divergence, and every relevant, interesting link that branches off from those (on or off wikipedia).

ETA: Oh, and learning about statistical mechanics, especially the canonical ensemble was a big help for me too, esp. given the relation to the E. T. Jaynes articles on the maximum entropy formalism. But YMMV.

Comment author: Benquo 22 October 2009 08:05:27PM 9 points [-]

This kind of sentiment pops up in Plato a lot, esp. in discussions of rhetoric, like here in Gorgias:

"For I count being refuted a greater good, insofar as it is a greater good to be rid of the greatest evil from oneself than to rid someone else of it. I don't suppose that any evil for a man is as great as false belief about the things we're discussing right now." (458a, Zeyl Translation)

Comment author: Psychohistorian 22 October 2009 11:57:45PM *  0 points [-]

Excellent point. This concept goes squarely with much of Socrates' philosophy: the wise men knew nothing, and he knew nothing, but he knew it and they didn't, thus, he was the wisest man alive, as the oracle had said.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 22 October 2009 05:56:11PM 6 points [-]

Being wrong is the best possible outcome of an argument, as it's the one with the highest expected knowledge gain

No, that's backwards. Learning that you are wrong is good if and only if you are wrong. But it's only good because you were already wrong, which was bad - you were making bad decisions before. It's like saying that it is better to win the lottery than to be born rich. Roughly speaking, it doesn't matter when or where the money or knowledge comes from, only that you can use it.

Comment author: loqi 22 October 2009 07:34:19PM 6 points [-]

So if you are surprised to find a $20 bill in your couch, your disappointment at having lost $20 some time in the past is equal to your pleasure at now having $20 more than you did a moment ago?

My current level of ignorance is a fact of life, I already know that there must be things that I'm wrong about. How is finding out something in particular that I am wrong about anything but a positive outcome?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 23 October 2009 03:53:49AM 1 point [-]

So if you are surprised to find a $20 bill in your couch, your disappointment at having lost $20 some time in the past is equal to your pleasure at now having $20 more than you did a moment ago?

roughly, yes.

My current level of ignorance is a fact of life, I already know that there must be things that I'm wrong about. How is finding out something in particular that I am wrong about anything but a positive outcome?

If your mistakes are independent, then correcting one of them doesn't (much) correct your estimate of how many more mistakes you have to correct. Say you have 21 beliefs with 95% confidence and an argument clarifies a random one of them. You still have 1 expected wrong belief. By independence, we might as well say it's belief #1 that gets clarified. People who were wrong about it end up the same as people who were right about it. Yes, they gained more information, but they were really just unlucky to start with less information. This is exactly the lottery/inheritance model.

Yes, your ignorance is a fact, but it's not a fact accessible to you. The argument decreases your estimate of your ignorance by the same amount, regardless of whether you win or lose. If you happen to know how ignorant you are, how many items you're wrong about, then the situation is different, but that's a lot less realistic than independence.

Comment author: loqi 23 October 2009 08:02:46AM 1 point [-]

So if I understand the point you're making: Losing an argument provides enough evidence of your prior ignorance to prevent any net gain in your expectation of your own overall knowledgeability, at least relative to winning the argument.

I don't disagree, but I don't know why I'd care to base an emotional response on this kind of evaluation. I'm not fretting over my absolute position on the axis of knowledge, I'm just hill climbing. It's the first derivative that my decisions affect, not the initial constant.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 04:25:36AM 4 points [-]

So if you are surprised to find a $20 bill in your couch, your disappointment at having lost $20 some time in the past is equal to your pleasure at now having $20 more than you did a moment ago?

That depends rather a lot on my dopamine levels and thought patterns. I gain much more pleasure from finding cash than I am disappointed at losing it. Hang on... Excuse me. Going for a walk around my house with my wallet open.

Comment author: Technologos 24 October 2009 07:45:47AM 1 point [-]

Careful... diminishing returns still apply ;)

Comment author: eirenicon 22 October 2009 07:34:29PM *  2 points [-]

It isn't that winning the lottery is better than being born rich, it's that winning the lottery is better than not winning the lottery. Even if you're already rich, winning the lottery is good. Presumably you weren't born right about everything, which means it's more useful to lose arguments than win them. After all, if you never lose an argument, what's more likely: that you are right about everything, that you're the best arguer ever, or that you simply don't argue things you're wrong about?

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 02:43:15AM 0 points [-]

After all, if you never lose an argument, what's more likely: that you are right about everything, that you're the best arguer ever, or that you simply don't argue things you're wrong about?

My first thought was b). What was the intended response?

Comment author: RobinZ 23 October 2009 03:00:52AM 0 points [-]

Presumably, not (a). In both other cases you've managed to not notice you're wrong.

Comment author: billswift 24 October 2009 04:42:55PM *  2 points [-]

Or that you are right about everything that you believe in strongly enough to argue about.

In other words, avoid believing strongly in the absence of evidence. And don't argue where you don't have the facts on your side.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 22 October 2009 06:14:25PM 4 points [-]

It's more so a terrible quote because it is unwise to have a significant emotional attitude towards finding out you're wrong, because this will tend to reinforce irrational defense mechanisms ("Let's agree to disagree!"). The purpose of argument is, I hope, to improve your understanding of the world, so even if you shouldn't be thrilled to find yourself wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of doing so.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 22 October 2009 06:24:15PM *  4 points [-]

It's more so a terrible quote because it is unwise to have a significant emotional attitude towards finding out you're wrong, because this will tend to reinforce irrational defense mechanisms

Yes, it is unwise to have such emotional attitudes, but you don't get rid of them by saying that they are bad. Honestly acknowledging their existence, as in the original quote, is probably a better route to their elimination than an emotionless assertion that losing arguments is good. The quote, on its own, probably doesn't do much good, and perhaps does some harm, but I think it is probably a better step to accomplishing loqi's goal than his phrasing.

Comment author: loqi 22 October 2009 07:49:51PM *  1 point [-]

Honestly acknowledging their existence, as in the original quote, is probably a better route to their elimination than an emotionless assertion that losing arguments is good.

Possibly, but I certainly wasn't advocating an emotionless response. Fight fire with fire! If you realize you're feeling stupid for having been wrong instead of feeling excited to have learned something, go ahead and feel stupid for feeling stupid.

I think I understand the rationale behind the original quote: Being wrong feels awful, so you should try to be right as often as possible. But this emotional response also disincentivizes attempts to stick your neck out on behalf of your existing beliefs.

One might counter that a positive emotional response to being wrong provides an incentive for being wrong in the first place just so you can feel good about discarding your flawed beliefs in the future. This strikes me as a far less plausible mechanism than the above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 23 October 2009 03:24:10AM 0 points [-]

I think I understand the rationale behind the original quote: Being wrong feels awful, so you should try to be right as often as possible. But this emotional response also disincentivizes attempts to stick your neck out on behalf of your existing beliefs.

I agree that this is a dangerous use of the original quote, which I admitted can be put to both good and bad uses.

I probably shouldn't have invoked you and definitely shouldn't have used "emotionless."

Comment author: Emily 22 October 2009 10:50:10PM 7 points [-]

I agree with you, but I don't think that makes it a terrible quote. I personally don't seem to be psychologically able to avoid that awful sinking feeling when I realise I'm wrong, and it does suck. But recognising that it sucks is an important part of allowing the sinking feeling to wash over you, not be personally offended by it, and realise that if you update on this piece of wrongness, you're slightly less likely to be wrong again next time. For me at least, if I just try to pretend the sinking feeling isn't happening, because "rationally" it shouldn't, it just means I'm pretending the wrongness itself isn't happening. And that's a bad idea.

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 October 2009 02:09:45AM 0 points [-]

OTOH, you could just compare the feeling of being proven wrong to the feeling of being constipated with hemorrhoids and not being able to urinate, and reckon that you're getting off pretty easy.

Comment author: billswift 24 October 2009 04:36:30PM 2 points [-]

Emotions help anchor new knowledge. That horrible sinking feeling helps you to remember your screw up, so you don't do it again. I suspect people that keep making the same mistakes are those who try to hide their mistakes from themselves and avoid that feeling.

Comment author: NQbass7 22 October 2009 05:40:05PM 0 points [-]

Taken from Ruminations?

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: RobinZ 22 October 2009 08:18:17PM *  1 point [-]

I didn't downvote, but I didn't upvote either. The trouble is that a moment's thought reveals a host of objections. If I understand correctly, rationality quotes ought to be good, useful cached thoughts; this is merely a useful observation.

(Edit: On further reflection, I've upvoted it. Points to eirenicon.)

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: RobinZ 22 October 2009 08:47:16PM 1 point [-]

It's hyperbole, then.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 08:51:09PM *  1 point [-]

Hyperbole that only seems clever to people who haven't experienced real pain. (Note: didn't mod down, because the follow-up discussion is interesting.)

Comment author: RobinZ 22 October 2009 09:00:05PM *  5 points [-]

It's excessive hyperbole, then. You would have preferred the quote went more like the following.

The most embarrassing point in any argument is the one where you realize you're wrong.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 09:05:50PM 0 points [-]

That works :-)

Comment author: billswift 24 October 2009 04:54:04PM 1 point [-]

I'm curious as to how you define real pain then. I had shingles 9 years ago and an infection that went systemic a year ago that was even more painful, though thankfully only for a day.

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.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 October 2009 10:40:27PM 0 points [-]

I have a pound of Sweet-n-Sour pork for you to eat, and some scratchy toilet paper that can correct that ...

Comment author: wedrifid 23 October 2009 02:39:06AM 3 points [-]

Well, I don't feel bad at all, so obviously you haven't won this argument yet.\

This does much to explain the mechanism by which humans avoid realizing when they are wrong!

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

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

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 04:46:10PM *  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: 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: 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: 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 05:33:12PM 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: CronoDAS 23 October 2009 04:45:55AM 1 point [-]

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

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

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

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

You need to study your Mary Baker Eddy.

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

Really wish Friedrich used more paragraphs and less commas.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 11:48:39PM 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 11:51:02PM 17 points [-]

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

-- Kelvin Throop

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 October 2009 11:54:10PM 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 03:56:03AM *  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 03:57:34AM 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 03:59:33AM 11 points [-]

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

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

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

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

Short is good.

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

A formula is worth a thousand pictures.

—Edsger Dijkstra