= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on A Less Wrong singularity article? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (210)
In what contexts is the action you mention worth performing? Why are "critics" a relevant concern? In my perception, normal technical science doesn't progress by criticism, it works by improving on some of existing work and forgetting the rest. New developments allow to see some old publications as uninteresting or wrong.
"In what contexts is the action you mention worth performing?"
If the paper was endorsed by the top minds who support the singularity. Ideally if it was written by them. So for example Ray Kurzweil whether you agree with him or not he is a big voice for the singularity.
"Why are "critics" a relevant concern?"
Because technical science moves forward through peer-review and the proving and the disproving of hypotheses. The critics help prevent the circle jerk phenomena in science assuming they are well thought out critiques. Because outside review can sometimes see fatal flaws in ideas that are not necessarily caught by those who work in the field.
"In my perception, normal technical science doesn't progress by criticism, it works by improving on some of existing work and forgetting the rest. New developments allow to see some old publications as uninteresting or wrong."
Have you ever published in a peer-review journal? If not the last portion of your post I will ignore, if so perhaps your could expound on it a bit more.
The actual experience of publishing a paper hardly adds anything that can't be understood without doing so. Peer-review is not about "critics" responding to endorsement by well-known figures, it's quality control (with whatever failing it may carry), and not a point where written-up public criticisms originate. Science builds on what's published, not on what gets rejected by peer review, and what's published can be read by all.
FWIW, in my experience the useful criticisms happen at conferences or in private conversation, not during the peer review process.
It is rarely the case that experience adds hardly anything. What are your priors and posteriors here? How did you update?