= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_M comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - 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 (770)
Yoreth:
That's an extremely bad way to draw conclusions. If you were living 300 years ago, you could have similarly heard that some English dude named Isaac Newton is spending enormous amounts of time scribbling obsessive speculations about Biblical apocalypse and other occult subjects -- and concluded that even if he had some valid insights about physics, it wouldn't be worth your time to go looking for them.
The value of Newton's theories themselves can quite easily be checked, independently of the quality of his epistemology.
For a philosopher like Hegel, it's much harder to dissociate the different bits of what he wrote, and if one part looks rotten, there's no obvious place to cut.
(What's more, Newton's obsession with alchemy would discourage me from reading whatever Newton had to say about science in general)
A bad way to draw conclusions. A good way to make significant updates based on inference.
Would you be so kind as to spell out the exact sort of "update based on inference" that applies here?
???
"People who say stupid things are, all else being equal, more likely to say other stupid things in related areas".
That's a very vague statement, however. How exactly should one identify those expressions of stupid opinions that are relevant enough to imply that the rest of the author's work is not worth one's time?
In the context of LessWrong it should be considered trivial to the point of outright patronising if not explicitly prompted. Bayesian inference is quite possibly the core premise of the community.
In the process of redacting my reply I coined the term "Freudian Double-Entendre". Given my love of irony I hope the reader appreciates my restraint! <-- Example of a very vague statement. In fact if anyone correctly follows that I expect I would thoroughly enjoy reading their other comments.
Nobody knows (obviously), but you can try to train your intuition to do that well. You'd expect this correlation to be there.
Yep, and note that Hegel's philosophy is related to states more than Newton's physics is related to the occult.