AdeleneDawner comments on Logical Rudeness - Less Wrong

65 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 January 2010 06:48AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (203)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: brazil84 29 January 2010 04:52:01PM 3 points [-]

It seems to me that "logical etiquette" requires us to respond to the very strongest arguments made by our opponents as well as to read arguments reasonably. Without going back to this discussion, it's hard to tell who is being rude.

For example, suppose I make the following argument:

"American law schools always charge ridiculously high tuition because they can get away with it. The availability of generous student loans creates artificial demand and gives law schools the ability to charge exorbitant tuition. We need to reform the student loan program to fix this problem."

If somebody responds by simply saying "well, I know a law school in Nebraska which charges $500 per year so your premise is wrong," they are being rude. Because obviously when I said "always," I really meant "generally speaking." Further, the person is not really responding to the substance of my argument.

I have no idea if this is what happened with Eliezer and Thomas. I'm just saying.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 29 January 2010 05:20:13PM 4 points [-]

I went and looked at the original post - it's very long, but does actually address Thomas' question:

Or imagine that the combination [to the lock that we're trying to pick] changes every second. In this case, 0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0 is just as good as the randomized algorithm - no better and no worse. What this shows you is that the supposedly "random" algorithm is "better" [than trying 0-0-0-0 repeatedly] relative to a known regularity of the lock - that the combination is constant on each try. Or to be precise, the reason the random algorithm does predictably better than the stupid one is that the stupid algorithm is "stupid" relative to a known regularity of the lock.

Given the length of the post, I think the most reasonable assumption is that Thomas had forgotten that that particular point had been covered by the time he reached the end of it. I know I had by the time I saw his original question.