Rationality Quotes: November 2010
A monthly thread for posting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently (or had stored in your quotesfile for ages).
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (354)
-- Talib Kweli (substitute "nature" for "God")
I don't think it would be a good idea to take a Carl Sagan quote and add a 'substitute "God" for "nature"' postscript. I don't think this is a good idea either.
Talib Kweli is nonreligious, so I'm not changing the meaning of the quotation. "God" is often used poetically. Example:
Albert Einstein
Even if Kweli were religious the point would not be to put words in his mouth, but to reapply a beautiful quotation to another context where it is meaningful.
~ Robert M. Pirsig
Now the actual quote's out of the way, here's my version: when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from a delusion it is called society.
Or friendship, or marriage, or all kinds of other things.
del
That doesn't sound right.
To me, it seems like:
(Philosophy -> Science) and (Art -> Engineering).
Francis Bacon
Duplicate, twice.
From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline...
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.
There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still.
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.
By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things--how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.
And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
~Catherine Faber, The Word of God
I want to upvote this twice.
This comment being upvoted +21 doesn't fit my model of LessWrong voting, because it personifies the natural world with a God-concept, even if it is advocating for science and evolution. Am I missing something?
It beautifully promotes Joy in the Merely Real, and strongly encourages the pursuit of knowledge.
It's good art advocating for science.
I suspect it may be something similar to what NihilCredo said; rationalist quotes from theist sources are just so much fun.
So should every every metaphor be voted down? Or just personifying metaphors? Or just metaphors mentioning deities?
I downvoted it because it perpetuated the myth that Galileo was tortured. Plus, God knows, the poetry was pretty awful.
"Plus, God knows, the poetry was pretty awful."
I could agree with you more. But I won't.
I figure this particular one strikes some as a bit iffy since the metaphor is so close to the salient metaphor the actual creationists are using and treating as a non-metaphor. Metaphors, like "God wrote life", closely associated with unsympathetic real-world groups tend to carry a bit extra baggage. The matter is of course confused further by the original context where this was written as a response to creationists.
This was especially exciting due to my newfound knowledge that ballad meter can be sung to the tune of the Gilligan's Island theme.
What evidence is there that Galileo was tortured?
A gun can be used to commit a crime even if it isn't fired.
"Torture" here is analogous to "shooting", not "crime".
I was analogizing "torture" with "gun", not "crime" or "shooting". Torture was a tool that the church had on hand and was prepared to use, and Galileo's knowledge of their threat to use torture was what led him to recant. (It was the forcing of his recanting that was the "crime" in my analogy.)
It might be more precise to say that what the church had on hand was an institutionalized practice of torture, but using "torture" to refer to the practice (rather than a particular act) seems within the bounds of accuracy in poetry.
That's a bit contrived - imagine if a presidential candidate mentions how his will was broken by torture in Vietnam, and afterward it's revealed that all that happened was that he was told he might be tortured, so he spilled the beans immediately. I wouldn't expect his poll numbers to go up.
I would still say that torture was used to break his will. To say this would be accurate, if not precise (because I'm not specifying whether I mean a particular act or an institutionalized practice). Whether his will proved too easy to break to satisfy the electorate is another matter.
So far as I know, he wasn't, just placed under house arrest. It jumped out at me too; you really have to get these poems exactly right on a factual level or it takes a lot away.
According to Owen Gingerich's The Great Copernicus Chase, the 1633 decree calling Galileo to be interrogated* read, in part, as follows:
(Emphasis added.) Gingerich goes on to say:
(Emphasis added.) These quotes can be seen using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature. This link worked for me. These passages are also excerpted in this pdf.
So, Galileo was explicitly threatened with torture, though he was not actually tortured and may not even have been "shown the instruments of torture" (which is the strongest claim made in reputable sources). As I argue in this thread, I believe that this justifies saying that the Church used torture (as an institutionalized practice) to force Galileo to recant.
* An earlier version of this comment referred here to "the 1633 sentence entered against Galileo" because I misread Gingerich's use of the word "sentence" to refer to a sentence of punishment, but he just meant a grammatical sentence ><.
The modern conception of Galileo as someone harshly prosecuted for his beliefs seems rather exaggarated: in reality, he was even explicitly encouraged to write a book on the subject by the church. It was only when he offended the Pope in his book that he got sent to house arrest.
I got burned during a debate because I trusted the history from my physics textbook. After having read several books on the history of science (rather than summaries inside larger works) I am convinced that the Dark Arts on on full display even in natural science coursework.
Who is Catherine Faber? Has she made anything public about herself other than this wonderful poem? Google and Wikipedia were not immediately helpful.
From her website:
From her bio:
--The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, vol 1
Rationality?
"However insistently the blind may deny the existence of the sun, they cannot annihilate it. " - D. T. Suzuki
Want to bet?
(At stakes of a few thousand galaxies worth of energy and negentropy. It's not going to be cheap to win this bet! I'm not too comfortable with the whole making myself blind thing either but I guess I can rectify that once I finish deploying the antimatter disruptor beam.)
You are mistaking the map for the territory. It doesn't matter if its a quark-pair or a hyper colossal cosmic structure gravitationally influencing everything in the universe; if a condition is present, then it has effect.
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the Sun."
I just noticed that I implicitly assumed that it would have to be me that blinded himself. What sort of nefarious sun destroying intergalactic mastermind would I be if did foist that role upon a henchman?
You're going to have trouble destroying the Sun if you don't believe it exists.
He only has to deny that it exists.
Alternatively, he could lock himself onto a sun-destroying path, and then forcibly do an unBayesian update away from the existence of the sun.
Alternately, he could interpret the sentence literally, note that 'not at all' is a level of insistence, deny the existence of the sun not at all, and then destroy it.
I just came across this and thought it was a pretty funny dialogue: "Reality is that which does not go away upon reprogramming." (Check the first 4 comments here: Chatbot Debates Climate Change Deniers on Twitter so You Don’t Have to)
This is of course a paraphrase borrowed from Philip K. Dick's famous statement:
I shared this on another website and got this comment:
This has been done for a while. A few years ago there was some noise about a russian chatbot which impersonated a good-looking girl and tried to scam people to give personal information and/or money.
Every time it succeeded, it passed the turing test.
From Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series:
"Certainly, my situation is unique," Sazed said. "I would say that I arrived at it because of belief."
"Belief?" Vin asked.
"Yes," Sazed said. "Tell me, Mistress, what is it that you believe?"
Vin frowned. "What kind of question is that?"
"The most important kind, I think."
Vin thought, then shrugged. "I don't know what I believe."
"People often say that, but I find it is rarely true."
Sunday in the Park with George, by Stephen Sondheim
— Randall Munroe, xkcd – Mutual
That comic gets bonus points for nice use of Hofstadter-ian strange loop.
-- Michaelangelo's motto
[I have had cause to apply this one recently. It particularly resonated to see it in the book just now.]
This seems to be missing, at minimum, some punctuation.
Edit: Moot.
Ellipses eaten by cut'n'paste. Fixed. Thank you :-)
Isaac Newton's argument for intelligent design:
-- Letter to Richard Bentley
Here's another Newton ID quote. This one complements PeterS's because the true naturalistic explanation requires physics that was not implicit in Newton's mechanics.
—Isaac Newton, Four Letters From Sir Isaac Newton To Doctor Bentley Containing Some Arguments In Proof Of A Deity.
Xenophanes
More likely they would write a treatise on how God wants them to keep pulling carts around.
There might be a strong chance that horses and other animals would draw their gods as having human form. Humans tend to protray their gods as being either equal or higher than humanity. Animist gods are protrayed as having characteristics that surpass humans: speed, wisdom, patience, etc. based on the characteristics of that animal. Alternately, sun gods, storm gods, etc.: higher powers.
Some wild horses would have horse gods or weather gods or wolf gods. Some might have human gods, depending on their interaction with humanity.
I'd imagine that domesticated horses would have human gods, some benevolent and some malignant, or both. And some domesticated horses would go "through the looking glass" and develop a horse-god of redemption, with prophecies of freeing them from the toil and slavery of domestication, based on some original downfall of horse-dom that led to them being subservient to humans.
Or something like that.
I'm not sure this makes sense. Empirically many human cultures have deities that are shaped like animals.
Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides." [Lettres Persanes, no 59]
Surely he would be circular?
Well, the Egyptians had animal-headed gods.
If you can't tell whose side someone is on, they are not on yours. -Warren E. Buffett
Wouldn't this be a problem for tit for tat players going up against other tit for tat players (but not knowing the strategy of their opponent)?
Only if it's common knowledge that both players are human.
ETA: Since I got downvoted, maybe I wasn't being clear. I think that the Warren Buffett quote applies to human psychology more than to game theory in general. If outright deception were easy, it would probably become a good strategy to keep your allies in some doubt about your intentions, as a bargaining chip. But we humans don't seem to be good at pulling that off, and so ambivalence is a strong signal of opposition.
Now that you have clarified, I wish I could downvote a second time.
Tit-for-tat is a good strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma regardless of whether the players are human and regardless of whether the other player is "on your side". In fact, it is pretty much taken for granted that there are no sides in the PD. Dre was downvoted by me for a complete misunderstanding of how Tit-for-tat relates to "sides". You were downvoted for continuing the confusion.
Oh, you're right- my response would have made sense talking about players in a one-shot PD with communication beforehand, but it's a non sequitur to Dre's mistaken comment. Don't know how I missed that.
If after 1/2 hr of poker you can't tell who's the patsy, it's you. - Charles T. Munger
Charles H. Spurgeon
Not always. I know someone who narrowly avoided Auschwitz who would beg to differ; her worst enemies were definitely external.
True, but barely. For how long do you think she would have had to plan and execute fully rationally in order to prevent Auschwitz. I think that it would have been a lot of work, but not insanely much work if done honestly.
?
Do you mean avoiding getting sent to Auschwitz, or preventing the Holocaust?
Escaping was something of a gamble. It probably wasn't obvious that fleeing to France wasn't good enough.
Prevent the Holocaust.
How do you think that could have been done?
General principles. Doing things isn't ever that difficult relative to the psychological capabilities we casually assume ourselves to possess. We then fail to update correctly and include that goals are difficult rather than concluding that over long time horizons we don't work the way we very casually seem to over periods of a few minutes.
I guess when the guys that hate your guts get into power, is a good time to start packing. But after a decent time in the 20s, and lots of history, and many people of jewish decent being educated, and involved in the society, it is hard to see the signs. Jews have served in the 1. world war, and rightfully, and completely saw them self as Germans. Getting banned from professions came later, limits to who can marry whom and so on. It reminds me of the story of the frog that slowly gets heated up in water. Each step seems only a little worse than the other, so one thinks it might fade away.
One should also keep in mind that racism and sexism was more widely spread in these days. Jews were not particularly welcomed in the US or elsewhere.
The horror of Auschwitz was never announced. on each step there was talk of relocation. That includes the officials. No one imagined that a cultured people would be so barbaric.
For a fictional presentation on how to turn up the heat the original V miniseries is pretty good.
I'm a homosexual atheist living in the United States, and apparently people take the teabaggers seriously enough to vote for them. Should I move?
Considered under the categorical imperative, this strategy seems like it would lead to people clustering themselves into super-fanatical cliques, which strikes me as undesirable. In particular, it would become harder and harder for anyone to change their mind, and thus harder for human knowledge to progress.
Note also that, if the liberal Americans are the first to leave, the trigger-happy neocons get to keep control of the heavily nuclear-armed country.
I will tell you in hindsight.
The move or change decision is an interesting one. For German Jews it was obviously better to leave. I would guess that many dissidents in islamic countries are also better off being alive in exile. Edit: Formatting
As I understand it, a good many German Jews had the amount of warning and the resources to get out. Polish Jews were caught more by surprise and (I think) were generally less well off, and most of the Holocaust happened there.
Perhaps we should have a discussion about making high-stakes urgent decisions under conditions of great uncertainty.
I happen to be German, currently live in Nuremberg, and finally got around to visit Auschwitz last year. But i do not know the relation of people that flew and people that stayed. Fleeing also involed the ability to pay for the ticket. I probably read some about that, but forgot. It is true that the killings mostly happened in the east. But quite many were deported there just for this purpose.
Wikipedia: Over 90% of Polish Jews were killed, and about 75% of German Jews.
Until I checked, I didn't realize that the proportion of German Jews who were killed was that high. I didn't have a specific number in mind, I think I was just giving more attention to the idea of those who'd escaped.
Yes. Not having been there limits imagination. Pre WW2 jews were as common as they are now in the US (or maybe more.) Now you will not find that many. All people of Jewish decent i know are not from Germany.
In the last year I stumbled over genocides. This being the most unexpected evil I found..
This is the one that surprised me.
Can't you say "not always" about pretty much any quote? They aren't meant to be taken as universal truths that apply to all people and all circumstances across all of time ;-).
Your comment raises a very delicate point and I'm not sure that I am tactful enough to make it clearly.
Zooming out to get a broader view so that we can notice what usually happens, rather than the memorable special case, we notice that most Germans were enthusiastic about Hitler, all the way from 1933 to 1941. It is hard to reconstruct the reasons why. Looking at the broad picture we get a clear sense of people being their own worst enemies, enthusiastically embracing a mad leader who will lead them to destruction.
The message that history is sending to Alan is: if you had been a young man in Germany in 1933 you would have idolized Hitler. There are two ways to respond to this sobering message. One is to picture myself as an innocent victim. There were plenty of innocent victims, so this is easily done, but it dodges the hard question. The other response is to embrace the LessWrong vision and to search for ways to avoid the disasters to which self-deception sentences Man.
I'm a big fan of lesswrong yet I think it falls short because it lacks any concrete steps taken in the direction of being more rational. Just reading interesting posts won't make you a rationalist.
It's true that just reading posts won't make you more rational very fast. But thankfully, that is not the extent of LW - it is also encouraging people to respond to arguments they see, in a social context that rewards improving skills very highly. We are sort of practicing "virtue rationality" here, if you will.
Once you have truly assimilated the core ideas of LW, to the point where they're almost starting to feel like cliches, you simply cannot HELP but to apply them in everyday life.
For example, "notice when you're confused" saved my bacon recently: I was working on a group engineering project (in university) which was more or less done, but there was some niggling detail of interfacing that didn't sit well with me. I didn't know it was wrong; I just had a weird sensation of butterflies and fog every time I thought about that aspect. In the past I have responded to such situations with a shrug. This time, inspired by the above maxim, I decided to really investigate, at which point it became clear that our design had skipped a peripheral but essential component.
I can cite more personal examples if you like. The trouble with noticing such instances is that once a skill is truly digested, it doesn't have a little label that says "that skill came from LessWrong." It just feels like the obviously right thing to do.
I doubt that it is. You find similar idolizations of leaders in many places. The general principles can be understood, and I think are by now. For the special case of nazi-germany you have the added bonus of good documentation and easy availability of contemporary sources.
You're right, and I think that the reason it's so hard to make that point tactfully is because of how scary it is. If we go down that line of thought honestly, we can imagine ourselves firing up the ovens, or dragging manacled people into the belly of a slave ship, and feeling good about it. This is not a comfortable idea.
But there's another, more hopeful side to this. As MartinB points out, it's possible to understand how such monstrous acts feel to the people committing them, and train yourself to avoid making the same mistakes. This is a problem we can actually attack, as long as we can accept that our own thoughts are fallible.
(On a lighter note: how many people here regularly catch themselves using fallacious logic, and quickly correct their own thoughts? I would hope that the answer is "everyone", or at least "almost everyone". If you do this, then it shows that you're already being significantly less wrong, and it should give a fair amount of protection against crazy murderous ideologies.)
"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." —Martin Niemoeller
I think that quote speaks a little about the worst enemies within us, in purely clinical terms, that what's in the best interest of those with whom you don't necessarily explicitly associate yourself may also be in your own best interest.
The thing to keep in mind about the Jewish Holocaust is that it wasn't particularly unusual. It was unusual mostly in its location: it was rare to carry out such large scale atrocities ''in Europe''. Exterminations had been carried out by various states upon people in every other part of the world. Some were absolute, and entire races were exterminated. Hitler had great admiration for how the United States dealt with its native population. Sweden exterminated slaughtered whole groups in Africa. The list is not as short as we'd like it to be.
An interesting (and depressing) book: <u>Exterminate All the Brutes</u> by Sven Lindqvist
What I took from this book is that the enemy that is the holocaust situation is within us. The Jewish Holocaust was (unfortunately) not an outlier, but rather was/is in our culture or genes or humanity (I'm not sure I know which, although I tend towards the genetics).
What is unusual (I think) about the Jewish Holocaust is that it wasn't part of a conquest. Jews were very well integrated into German society, and had never been at war with it. Any other similar cases?
-- French Ninja, Freefall
Puts me in mind of "Rationalists should win".
-- benelliott (edited to attribute)
I. A. Richards, "Principles of Literary Criticism"
Reminiscent of Umberto Eco describing the novel as "a machine for generating interpretations".
Take that idea far enough and you get something like Haibane Renmei, where there is no official interpretation -- everybody has to generate their own idea of what the show's premise is. This was frustrating the first time I watched it, since I didn't know that there wasn't going to be an explanation for everything. The second time, though, I absolutely loved it.
Dr. Manhattan (Watchmen)
A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician.
--Samuel Johnson
-- Ken Binmore, in Natural Justice, p56
Science works by scientists not doing all their thinking for themselves. That's also how it fails. Getting the balance right may be hard, but no-one has really tried very hard, so it may not be. Trying to do that is largely what I see SIAI as being about.
Hmmm. A mathematician learning a new field thinks for himself, up to a point. Oh, he gets his ideas, theorems, and even proofs from the book, but he is supposed to verify the thinking for himself.
The same kind of thing applies to scientists. They get ideas, formulas, and even empirical data from other scientists, but they are supposed to verify the inferences and even some of the derivations themselves. At least in their own field. A neuroscientist using FMRI doesn't need to know the fine points of the portions of QED dealing with particle spins in a varying magnetic field. Nor the computer science involved in the image processing. But he does appreciate that these tools, whether he understands them in detail himself or not, are not based on tradition or authority, but instead draw their legitimacy from the work of his colleagues in those fields who definitely do think for themselves.
If the balance you seek to strike is the balance that lets you distinguish path-breaking innovation from crackpottery, I would suggest this: It is ok to try doing something that the experts think is impossible if you really understand why they are so pessimistic and you think you might understand why they are wrong.
I like the sentiment, but - instructed in Humean skepticism? Isn't that going overboard in the opposite direction?
Binmore is on something of a "Hume is God, Kant is Satan" kick in this book. Another quote I like deals with Binmore's efforts to comprehend the "categorical imperative":
I share much of Binmore's enthusiasm for Hume. I don't think that rationalists have much reason to dislike Hume's skepticism. Hume was a practical man, and his famous argument against induction is far from a counsel of epistemological despair. As for instructing the young to be skeptical of gods - well it may violate the US Constitution, but then so does gun control. ;)
Nonetheless, I suspect that many people here would not care much for this particular quote in its full context - starting a couple paragraphs before my quote and continuing a paragraph further.
Related to: Politics, Protection
H.L. Mencken, Minority Report.
I am not sure I get it.
A more direct paraphrasing would be, Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean that your answers are correct.
A concrete example: just because scientists don't currently know everything about how evolution happened, that doesn't mean that Young Earth Creationists are right. Typical YEC debating strategy is to look for gaps (real or imagined) in our current theories, and act as if that proves that God created the world in six days, and from the dust created every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, etc.
No, it speaks of remedy. It's not about beliefs about the world, but about courses of action, and there he's dead wrong - a course of action can only be bad by comparison to a better alternative.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." is a fallacy. (The Politician's Syllogism.) Mencken's statement pretty clearly includes the course of action of not taking action; he's stating that any action is not necessarily better than no action, and that taking on any belief is not necessarily better than holding no belief.
I wrote about this.
The idea is: I can criticize a plan that claims wonderful successes, even if I have no corresponding plan of my own. Maybe we don't know how to get wonderful successes at all. Maybe they're impossible. Maybe your reasoning is suspect.
-- T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics #539
I know this is well known, but to supplement the T-Rex:
-Alfréd Rényi/Paul Erdős
Yes, and don't forget the dual result that a comathematician is a device for turning cotheorems into ffee.
And a cat is a device for turning kibble into cuddle.
Kołakowski's Law, or The Law of the Infinite Cornucopia:
Leszek Kołakowski
I like it.
+1
If you set out to beat a dog, you're sure to find a stick. -- Old Yiddish Proverb
Dean Schlicter
--Futurama
-- The Jesus Seminar
(Developed in the context of biblical interpretation, of course. But despite my nontheism, I've found the principle behind it to be widely applicable.)
The Mexican Drug War in One Lesson: Know Your Zetas!
--Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh ch. 1
Scooping the Loop Snooper
an elementary proof of the undecidability of the halting problem
by Geoffrey Pullum
I came across this yesterday. The blog might also be worth a look, see for example 'A Brief History of Grammar'.
For the young who want to by Marge Piercy
The poem is mostly about not being recognized as having a magical ability to do things until after you've succeeded. I'm just posting the link because it's more trouble than it's worth to make the line breaks show up properly.
Erwin Rommel, The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Sourced
"All of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."
---George Eliot, "Middlemarch"
Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
--mechanical_fish on Hacker News. Emphasis mine. source
-- attr. Albert Einstein
-Pantene Pro-V hair care bottle
-- Gordon Freeman, kind of
Another "rationality quote" from the same video:
"But building your life's explanations around science isn't a profession. It is, at its core, an emotional contract, an agreement to only derive comfort from rationality."
-Robert Sapolsky, in a essay reply to "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
Rationality quotes: very many from @BadDalaiLama on Twitter.
(Edit: there's also this handy archive.)
Nice link. My favorite: In a democracy, the poor have the same power as the rich, but the rich can buy advertising, which the poor are suckers for.
This one felt quite LW-relevant:
It's good to be reminded now and then that dollars are not, in fact, utilons.
The natural logarithm of dollars is a pretty good approximation of utilons, assuming you like candy-bars.
Here's some evidence from Stevenson & Wolfers that happiness/life satisfaction is proportional to the log of income: blog post, pdf article.
How does ln(dollars) approximate utilions? It's obvious that utilions are generally not fully linear in dollars, and they're certainly not equivalent, but how does the log of dollars, specifically, approximate utility?
If there is some mathematical reason why, I would love to know. I was going off the observation that the natural logarithm approximates the kind of diminishing returns that economists generally agree applies to the utility of wealth. This means that, very roughly, the logarithm of dollars is the 'revealed preference' utility.
It was actually more of a joke about that assumption, because it suggests that a 50 dollar meal is preferred four times as much to a 3 dollar candy bar - a bit odd, but perfectly natural if you like candy bars.
Well, log does that. But so does square root also. Lots of functions have diminishing marginal returns.
I can think of two good reasons to model diminishing returns with the natural log.
Logs produce nice units in the regression coefficients. A log-lin function (that is -- log'd dependent, linear independent) says that a percent increase in X results in a <coefficient> unit increase in Y. Similar statements are true for lin-log and log-log, the latter of which produces elasticities.
y=ln(x) and y=sqrt(x) will both fit data in a similar manner, so it makes sense to go with the one that makes for easy interpretation.
Additionally, the natural log frequently shows up in financial economics, most prominently in continuous interest but also notably in returns, which seem to follow the log-normal distribution.
Of course, there's the problem with pathological behavior near 0.
Or the utility of money could quite reasonably be bounded.
With some constraints, of course.
Talmud, Avoda Zara 54b
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at
solomon short (david gerrold's fictional character)
Overall, however, we've done better by avoiding dragons than by slaying them. -Warren E. Buffett
Richard Feynman
It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful, they are found because it was possible to find them. -J. Robert Oppenheimer.
There are two quite different interpretations of this quote: it either says something about scientists, or something about scientific truths, and I'm not sure which is the intention.
The two messages I see are:
Scientists just enjoy seeking truths, you don't need to give them the incentive of practical applications in order for them to do science, so any truths that can be discovered will be, regardless of their usefulness.
There are an awful lot of true things. The ones that we know might not be the most useful, but they are the ones that happen to lie in the (extremely small?) subset of true things that humans are capable of understanding.
To an extent, I guess both of these are true... which one was Oppenheimer aiming at?
<quote>There are an awful lot of true things. </quote>
I think that many of the things that are commonly regarded as being "true" are socially constructed fictions, biases and fallacies. Moreover science can never attain absolute truth it can only strive for it.
Hi stochastic, and welcome to Less Wrong!
This is actually a really important topic. I agree that there are a lot of cultural and normative claims that don't deserve to be called "true" or "false", despite their common usage as such. I'd be cautious of using the phrase "absolute truth", since it conjures up false expectations compared to the actual process of increasing confidence in models of the world.
Really relevant: The Simple Truth
P.S. Introduce yourself on the welcome page when you have a moment!
The quote syntax is
Which becomes
Quibble: Two things you might have missed:
It is still an unending source of surprise for me how a few scribbles on a blackboard or on a piece of paper can change the course of human affairs. -Stanislaw Ulam
Can they really? I have my doubts. Most of those scribbles on a blackboard were either an inevitable result of outside forces or would have been made on a different blackboard had they they not been made there. (Although to be fair the butterfly and mere chance will play their part at least some of the time.)
I think he had things like the development of physics in the 20th century that led to the creation of the A and H bombs. I got the quote from Richard Rhodes history of the making of the atomic bomb.
It doesn't matter exactly which blackboard or wrote wrote what, in the end, a bunch of people making calculations and experiments changed the course of human affairs pretty significantly.
He could have also been thinking about the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and various other documents. (I'd list the Magna Carta, but it didn't really have the effect it's credited with. It was a few lines in a larger document that was more concerned with the hunting privileges of nobles than with the rights of man, and that was nullified before the year was out.)
Scribbles on maps, particularly in 1815 and 1919, had some largish effects.
The partitions of Korea and Vietnam are some more recent examples; nor have we seen the last of the largish effects of the former.
In 1923, England and France divided between them the previously Turkish territories of what are modern Syria, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine. They drew a pencil line on a map to mark the treaty border.
It turned out that the thickness of the pencil line itself was several hundred meters on the ground. In 1964, Israel fought a battle with Syria over that land.
People were killed because someone neglected to sharpen their pencil. That's "scribbles on a piece of paper" for you.
Ref: a book found by Google. I originally learned about this from an Israeli plaque at the Dan River preserve near the border.
I suppose it would be in bad taste to find that rather amusing. Or at least to admit it.
"The 350-mile detour in the Trans-Siberian Railway was caused by the Tsar, who drew the proposed route using a ruler with a notch in it." -- Not 1982
In circumstances like that I find I have to laugh, if only to keep from weeping.
Charles Sanders Peirce
Ouch.
But that part about "the essence of his life gone with it" is an exaggeration - or at least, only a temporary loss. There are plenty of vague shadows of ideas out there to be loved and cherished.
The course of human progress staggers like a drunk; its steps are quick and heavy but its mind is slow and blunt
-Jesse Michaels of Operation Ivy
Posted because it's a useful and evocative metaphor: the drunk feels himself leaning or falling in one direction, and puts his foot down in that direction to steady himself. If he doesn't step far enough, he is still leaning in the same direction, and he steps again. In this way we can make fantastic progress in directions we don't like while getting further away from the ways we did want to go.
This is a bit long for a rationality quote and isn't really a quote but short enough and worth the read: The most poetic and convincing argument for striving for posthumanity (via aleph.se).
That's kind of depressing.
There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would not have enough to live upon.
-Samuel Butler
— T.H. White (The Once and Future King)
There are exceptions... When a child first learns that he or she is mortal, I doubt that that is a happy day for him or her. Truths are valuable, but some are rather bitter.
Y.S. Abu-Mostafa, in explaining the VC inequality of PAC learning.
John Archibald Wheeler
Buckminster Fuller
Rule I
Rule II
Rule III
Rule IV
Isaac Newton, Philosophiae naturalis: Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy
William Stanley Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, 1871: p.275-6