= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JanetK comments on Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010 - 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 (610)
The penny has just dropped! When I first encountered LessWrong, the word 'Rationality' did not stand out. I interpreted it to mean its everyday meaning of careful, intelligent, sane, informed thought (in keeping with 'avoiding bias'). But I have become more and more uncomfortable with the word because I see it having a more restricted meaning in the LW context. At first, I thought this was an economic definition of the 'rational' behaviour of the selfish and unemotional ideal economic agent. But now I sense an even more disturbing definition: rational as opposed to empirical. As I use scientific evidence as the most important arbiter of what I believe, I would find the anti-empirical idea of 'rational' a big mistake.
The philosophical tradition of 'Rationalism' (opposed to 'Empiricism') is not relevant to the meaning here. Though there is some relationship between it and "Traditional Rationality" which is referenced sometimes.
I don't think that's how most people here understand "rationalism".
Good
There is at least one post about that - though I don't entirely approve of it.
Occam's razor is not exactly empirical. Evidence is involved - but it does let you choose between two theories both of which are compatible with the evidence without doing further observations. It is not empirical - in that sense.
Occam's razor isn't empirical, but it is the economically rational decision when you need to use one of several alternative theories (that are exactly "compatible with the evidence"). Besides, "further observations" are inevitable if any of your theories are actually going to be used (i.e. to make predictions [that are going to be subsequently 'tested']).
Ummmmmmmm.... no.
The word "rational" is used here on LW in essentially its literal definition (which is not quite the same as its colloquial everyday meaning).... if anything it is perhaps used by some to mean "bayesian"... but bayesianism is all about updating on (empirical) evidence.
According to my dictionary: rationalism 1. Philos. the theory that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge (opp. empiricism, sensationalism)
This is there as well as: rational 1. of or based on reasoning or reason
So although there are other (more everyday) definitions also listed at later numbers, the opposition to empirical is one of the literal definitions. The Bayesian updating thing is why it took me a long time to notice the other anti-scientific tendency.
I wouldn't say "anti-scientific" - but it certainly would be good if scientists actually studied rationality more - and so were more rational.
With lab equipment like the human brain, you have really got to look into its strengths and weaknesses - and read the manual about how to use it properly.
Personally, when I see material like Science or Bayes - my brain screams: false dichotomy: Science and Bayes! Don't turn the scientists into a rival camp: teach them.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Because the group used Bayesian methods, I had assumed that they would not be anti-scientific. I was surprised when it seemed that they were willing to ignore evidence. I have been reassured that many in the group are rational in the everyday sense and not opposed to empiricism. Indeed it is Science AND Bayes.
Indeed. It is heretic in the extreme! Burn them!
Do you have a reason of sarcasm? I notice a tendency that seems to me disturbing and I am pointing it out to see if others have noticed it and have opinions, but I am not attacking. I am deciding whether I fit this group or not - hopefully I can feel comfortable in LW.
It felt like irony from my end - a satire of human behaviour.
As a general tendency of humanity we seem to be more inclined to be abhored by beliefs that are similar to what we consider the norm but just slightly different. It is the rebels within the tribe that are the biggest threat, not the tribe that lives 20 kms away.
I hope someone can give you an adequate answer to your question. The very short one is that empirical evidence is usually going to be the most heavily weighted 'bayesian' (rational) evidence. However everything else is still evidence, even though it is far weaker.
Here is our definition of rationality. See also the "unnamed virtue".
No, here is our definition of rationality.
Thank you. That seems clear. I will assume that my antennas were giving me the wrong impression. I can relax/
Maybe you shouldn't relax.
Regardless of official definitions, there is in practice a heavy emphasis on conceptual rigor over evidence.
There's still room for people who don't quite fit in.
Ah, that does seem to be better, yes.
In a certain sense rationality is using evidence efficiently. Perhaps overemphasis on that type of rationality tempts one to be sparing with evidence - after all if you use less evidence to reach your conclusion you used whatever evidence you did use more efficiently! But not using evidence doesn't mean there is more evidence left afterwards, not using free or very cheap evidence is wasteful, so proper rationality, even in that sense, means using all easily available evidence when practical.
I'm not sure I follow, why leave certain observations out of your judgement to "use evidence efficiently"? Do you mean to use your resources efficiently, like time and brain power? In that case, you can just define it as using resources as efficiently as possible. You need evidence to gain knowledge, you need knowledge to base theories, and you need theories to decide how to most effectively spend your resources, which can be spent on anything including finding more evidence in the first place.
My point was that it doesn't make sense. Even when trying to use evidence efficiently you should use all evidence (barring the considerations from Frugality and working from finite data, which are only relevant due to certain biases)