= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Correct Contrarian Cluster - 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 (228)
"Determining truth" has connotations with "certainty", which is at odds with the fact that evidence here is assumed to be weak -- something to prime attention, not imprint opinions.
(But I agree that the idea of getting any kind of useful conclusions/info from such a poll doesn't seem realistic.)
Edit: after reformulating the method, I changed my mind.
Conclusions, no, but it sure might print out a fascinating list of things to investigate.
I expect that all "things to investigate" you'd find would've already been on the radar.
I don't, especially if you let respondents suggest additional items and incorporated them. The CCC is large and includes things like (probably) the Shangri-La Diet.
Then the gain is not in turning attention to things considered wrong, but more to things that weren't considered at all. High-quality memetic availability pool allowing to not waste time on false positives. Again, too dramatic an effect to get from a poll, and it's unclear to what area should the finds be tuned. I'm not at all interested in know that cold fusion is real if counterfactually it is.