GreenRoot comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: komponisto 07 June 2010 08:37AM

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

Comments (534)

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

Comment author: MartinB 07 June 2010 01:36:19PM 3 points [-]

Being right on group effects is difficult.

Is there a consistent path for what LW wants to be? a) rationalist site filled up with meta topics and examples b) a) + detailed treats of some important topics c) open to everything as long as reason is used

and so on. I personally like and profit from the discussing of akrasia methods. But it might be detrimental to the main target of the site. Also I would very much like to see a cannon develop for knowledge that LWers generally agree upon including, but not limited to the topics I currently care about myself.

Voicing ideas depends on where you are. In social settings I more and more advice against it. Arguing/discussing is just not helpful. And if you are filled up with weird ideas then you get kicked out, which might be bad for other goals you have.

It would be great to have a place for any idea to be examined for right and wrong.

Comment author: GreenRoot 07 June 2010 02:12:48PM 1 point [-]

I would very much like to see a cannon develop for knowledge that LWers generally agree upon

LW is working on it, and you can help!

Comment author: RichardKennaway 07 June 2010 02:28:06PM 4 points [-]

I'd like to see a picture of this LW cannon!

Comment author: Yvain 07 June 2010 07:02:37PM 16 points [-]

I'd like to see a picture of this LW cannon!

Rather than waste time doing both your cannon request and Roko's Fallacyzilla request, I just combined them into one picture of the Less Wrong Cannon attacking Fallacyzilla.

...now someone take Photoshop away from me, please.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 June 2010 07:07:20PM 3 points [-]

What does Fallacyzilla have on its chest? It looks like it has "A -> B, ~B, therefore ~A" But that is valid logic. Am I misreading it or did you mean to put "A -> B, ~A, therefore ~B"? That would be actually wrong.

Comment author: Yvain 07 June 2010 07:13:23PM *  8 points [-]

I noticed that two seconds after I put it up and it's now corrected...er...incorrected. (Today I learned - my brain has that same annoying auto-correct function as Microsoft Word)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 June 2010 07:16:17PM 4 points [-]

There's a related XKCD. The mouse-over text is especially relevant.

Comment author: Morendil 07 June 2010 03:02:16PM 1 point [-]

To whoever downvoted the parent: please refrain from downvoting people who draw attention to other's mistakes in a gentle and humorous way.