Shalmanese comments on Any sufficiently advanced wisdom is indistinguishable from bullshit - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (37)
I think that statement is true only for time-constrained arguments. It takes time to research and understand the prerequisites to any "advanced wisdom," so to speak. Likewise, it takes time to understand the flaws in untrue things, and to notice your own biases. Finally, even if you understand the evidence and arguments leading up to some great insight, it takes time to fully understand the ramifications of the idea. If you're time-constrained like in your example, your past self simply can't process everything fast enough and the absurdity heuristic wins.
This is where I have to disagree with you. There are plenty of ways to quickly and accurately rule out most incorrect beliefs without accidentally ruling out correct beliefs. Many of them are mentioned on this site.
Note: The converse is not true. Not all bullshit looks like advanced wisdom.
Does more advanced wisdom look like bullshit than bullshit looks like advanced wisdom? I doubt it. Bullshit is selected for appearances.
By the OP's definition of 'advanced wisdom', all advanced wisdom looks like bullshit, by definition.
That (re)definition makes Shalmanese's third law tautological rather than clearly false. That's fine, so long as no attempt is made to draw any conclusions about, well, actual advanced wisdom.