SarahC comments on What is bunk? - Less Wrong

20 [deleted] 08 May 2010 06:06PM

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

Comments (101)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 08 May 2010 09:58:06PM 1 point [-]

"It seems to me that even if Eliezer Yudkowsky is really wrong about a lot that he believes (and this seems possible to me) he is nonetheless not a crackpot. But is there more to this than 'crackpots are incorrect contrarians who I don't like or have never agreed with'? Is there an objective distinction? Perhaps because he is ignored rather than rejected?"

Also a question I don't know the answer to. I wrote this post partly in response to my worries about Eliezer (and certain other autodidacts) whom I perceive not to be crackpots. Does that perception weigh in their favor, or only confirm me to be a fellow crackpot? I'm still trying to figure out what a crackpot is.

Comment author: orthonormal 12 May 2010 02:28:52AM 3 points [-]

Also a question I don't know the answer to. I wrote this post partly in response to my worries about Eliezer (and certain other autodidacts) whom I perceive not to be crackpots. Does that perception weigh in their favor, or only confirm me to be a fellow crackpot? I'm still trying to figure out what a crackpot is.

If you find yourself worrying whether a certain label applies to you, rather than wondering whether a specific set of claims are more or less likely to be true, be careful; social fears can easily derail the rational evaluation of evidence.

The question "What is bunk?" seems nigh unanswerable, a search for a dictionary definition to fill in a hanging node. Thinking in terms of "what class of claims can I dismiss as too unlikely on the face of it, and what claims have a high enough chance of truth that they're worth investigating?" is more realistic, IMO.