= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
adsenanim comments on Five-minute rationality techniques - 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 (231)
I think that the key words are "reasonably smart".
Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit is a good starting point, and it could be said that each of his examples are easily translatable to a oration of less than 5 minutes (as per Candle in the Dark), I have often thought that it would make a good children’s book (Carl and the Baloney Detector)...
A good resource would be the previous attempts at such a work, Aesop's Fables (Platitudinal), I Ching (Esoteric), and Judeo-Christi-Islamic Texts (Dogmatic). If we are to attempt a similar work for the ideas of reason then what can we learn from them to tell the aspects of how to provide a bible, or even a psalm, of reason?
It is a good starting point to keep a single idea down to what can be said before interest is lost and short enough to keep interest...
Perhaps instead of providing a single interpretation of a reasonable argument it would be a location for an argument idea, with the many interpretations of the specific argument and with related topics provided as a link?
So, in other words, Here is the Concept, These are the Arguments, This is What Concepts Relate, which could be kept to under 5 minutes.
"The WIKIRESONIA" :)
Do you know that these would be good resources? You haven't established this; it might help if you gave one or two examples of how these works of fiction that you listed could help us out.
You'd need to specifically have brevity and low inferential distance as goals, if you made such a wiki. The LW wiki tends to give a brief description of something and then link to some long posts on the subject; in contrast, Wikipedia tends to have really long articles. Getting all those "many interpretations" you recommend takes quite a bit of space. Check out how long the Wikipedia article on confirmation bias is, and ask yourself if a hypothetical Average Person could take anything useful from skimming it.
I present them (with my critique) because they represent to me attempts at reason as it was before the definition of reason was widely accepted.
I left out any direct quotes out because I thought it may confuse the topic of conversation and that the five minute rule would be violated if I tried to discuss them.
Aesop's Fables:
http://www.aesopfables.com/aesopsel.html
I Ching:
http://en.calameo.com/read/000039257e56b7faf538d
Judeo-Christi-Islamic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
Maybe not the best resources, but they could be an introduction.
I will add one more, only because I find it fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramids_(novel)
For some reason the above link does not deliver correctly, but you should be able to follow....
Yes the wiki is a challenge, I was thinking of a new graphical interface...