Rationality Quotes: November 2010

5 [deleted] 02 November 2010 08:41PM

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  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.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.

Comments (354)

Sort By: Popular
Comment author: HonoreDB 01 December 2010 04:39:25PM *  5 points [-]

Farnsworth A: You people and your slight differences disgust me. I'm going home. Where's that blue box with our universe in it?

Farnsworth 1: Oh, you'd like to get back to your evil universe, wouldn't you? And destroy your box with our universe inside it.

Farnsworth A: Nonsense! I would never do such a thing unless you were already having been going to do that!

--Futurama

Comment author: David_Gerard 01 December 2010 12:51:25AM *  5 points [-]

The important thing is not to shout at this point, Vimes told himself. Do not ... what do they call it ... go spare? Treat this as a learning exercise. Find out why the world is not as you thought it was. Assemble the facts, digest the information, consider the implications. Then go spare. But with precision.

  • Terry Pratchett, Thud!

[I have had cause to apply this one recently. It particularly resonated to see it in the book just now.]

Comment author: Alicorn 01 December 2010 12:54:17AM *  1 point [-]

Do not what do they call it go spare?

This seems to be missing, at minimum, some punctuation.

Edit: Moot.

Comment author: David_Gerard 01 December 2010 01:14:06AM 0 points [-]

Ellipses eaten by cut'n'paste. Fixed. Thank you :-)

Comment author: gwern 01 December 2010 02:43:46AM 0 points [-]

For the benighted Yanks among us:

(The secondary Wiktionary definition doesn't seem to convey the depth of anger that Urban Dictionary and various citations I looked at did.)

Comment author: Nornagest 01 December 2010 03:51:20AM 1 point [-]

Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.

-- 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.)

Comment author: XiXiDu 29 November 2010 10:13:54AM 2 points [-]

Most of the founding Zetas members–the original 40–were trained elite soldiers who received instruction in radio communications, counter-insurgency and drug-interdiction. But the Army forgot to add a few ethics lessons into the education mix. And that was a big fucking mistake.

The Mexican Drug War in One Lesson: Know Your Zetas!

Comment author: gwern 26 November 2010 08:02:40PM 2 points [-]

"...for we judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."

--Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh ch. 1

Comment author: Document 08 July 2011 06:49:27PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: XiXiDu 21 November 2010 01:56:49PM *  3 points [-]

Scooping the Loop Snooper

an elementary proof of the undecidability of the halting problem

by Geoffrey Pullum

No program can say what another will do. Now, I won't just assert that, I'll prove it to you: I will prove that although you might work till you drop, you can't predict whether a program will stop.

Imagine we have a procedure called P that will snoop in the source code of programs to see there aren't infinite loops that round and around; and P prints the word "Fine!" if no looping is found.

You feed in your code, and the input it needs, and then P takes them both and it studies and reads and computes whether things will all end as they should (as opposed to going loopy the way that they could).

Well, the truth is that P cannot possibly be, because if you wrote it and gave it to me, I could use it to set up a logical bind that would shatter your reason and scramble your mind.

Here's the trick I would use—and it's simple to do. I'd define a procedure—we'll name the thing Q— that would take any program and call P (of course!) to tell if it looped, by reading the source;

And if so, Q would simply print "Loop!" and then stop; but if no, Q would go right back up to the top, and start off again, looping endlessly back, till the universe dies and is frozen and black.

And this program called Q wouldn't stay on the shelf; I would run it, and (fiendishly) feed it itself. What behavior results when I do this with Q? When it reads its own source code, just what will it do?

If P warns of loops, Q will print "Loop!" and quit; yet P is supposed to speak truly of it. So if Q's going to quit, then P should say, "Fine!"— which will make Q go back to its very first line!

No matter what P would have done, Q will scoop it: Q uses P's output to make P look stupid. If P gets things right then it lies in its tooth; and if it speaks falsely, it's telling the truth!

I've created a paradox, neat as can be— and simply by using your putative P. When you assumed P you stepped into a snare; Your assumptions have led you right into my lair.

So, how to escape from this logical mess? I don't have to tell you; I'm sure you can guess. By reductio, there cannot possibly be a procedure that acts like the mythical P.

You can never discover mechanical means for predicting the acts of computing machines. It's something that cannot be done. So we users must find our own bugs; our computers are losers!

I came across this yesterday. The blog might also be worth a look, see for example 'A Brief History of Grammar'.

Comment author: shokwave 18 November 2010 04:14:27PM *  3 points [-]

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."

Comment author: Snowyowl 17 November 2010 01:46:46PM *  7 points [-]

If it's a stupid idea and it works, then it isn't stupid.

-- French Ninja, Freefall

Puts me in mind of "Rationalists should win".

Comment author: Document 08 July 2011 06:47:27PM *  1 point [-]

Or alternatively, there's something intelligent that works much better.

-- benelliott (edited to attribute)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 November 2010 05:53:12PM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: gwern 16 November 2010 12:09:24AM *  2 points [-]

"Mortal danger is an effective antidote for fixed ideas."

Erwin Rommel, The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Sourced

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2010 03:02:50AM 0 points [-]

This reminds me of the phrase "nobody learns faster than someone who is being shot at". Considering all the technological research done in war time, there seems to be a good point about motivation.

Comment author: phaedrus 16 November 2010 12:03:27AM 1 point [-]

"All of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

---George Eliot, "Middlemarch"

Comment author: Craig_Heldreth 16 November 2010 12:25:09AM 0 points [-]

Somebody else read the comments section in Sapolsky's New York Times op ed today.

His column had a rough explanation of human oddities explained as evolutionary adaptations.

link

(If you sort the comments by largest approval rating there are several interesting ones.)

Comment author: oliverbeatson 11 November 2010 06:37:36PM *  3 points [-]

I chose and my world was shaken, so what? The choice may have been mistaken; the choosing was not.

Sunday in the Park with George, by Stephen Sondheim

Comment author: MBlume 11 November 2010 02:12:02AM *  19 points [-]

When I was halfway through my Ph.D. I formulated a hypothesis: The proximate challenge that keeps you from graduating is that you have to write a thesis. But the ultimate challenge to getting your Ph.D. is this: You somehow have to learn to understand, deep down, that all your romantic notions about the Ph.D. are bunk, that you will be exactly the same person on the day after you get it that you were the day before, and that you need to stop waiting for the day when you feel like a god and just write something down and get on with life.

It may take you years to accept this, and it may drive you to drink, but after you get to that point you can graduate.

Only then will you be able to live with the fact that your thesis looks like crap to you. Your thesis will always look like crap to you. Either you will have figured out absolutely everything and your thesis will look incredibly boring to you, because you've moved on, or -- vastly more likely -- your thesis will look woefully incomplete because, geez, there is so much that you couldn't figure out, and you're just so stupid!

Or, most likely of all, you will think both of these things at the same time.

Similarly: Being the world's foremost expert on a particular scientific problem is a lot less exciting in real life than it seems in the movies. In fact, being on the frontier of science feels like being totally, hopelessly lost and confused. Why this came as a surprise to me I'll never know.

--mechanical_fish on Hacker News. Emphasis mine. source

Comment author: Document 04 December 2010 10:41:04PM 2 points [-]

Do not worry about your problems with mathematics. I assure you mine are far greater.

-- attr. Albert Einstein

Comment author: NihilCredo 11 November 2010 05:17:59AM *  8 points [-]

“But for that matter, how do you explain the fact that the statues of Easter Island are megaliths exactly like the Celtic ones? Or that a Polynesian god called Ya is clearly the Yod of the Jews, as is the ancient Hungarian Io-v’, the great and good god? Or that an ancient Mexican manuscript shows the Earth as a square surrounded by sea, and in its center is a pyramid that has on its base the inscription Aztlan, which is close to Atlas and Atlantis? Why are pyramids found on both sides of the Atlantic?”

“Because it’s easier to build pyramids than spheres. Because the wind produces dunes in the shape of pyramids and not in the shape of the Parthenon.”

“I hate the spirit of the Enlightenment.”

Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum

Comment author: Nisan 10 November 2010 08:02:18PM 21 points [-]

Know the hair you have to get the hair you want.

-Pantene Pro-V hair care bottle

Comment author: DSimon 10 November 2010 07:44:21PM *  3 points [-]

I can't keep rationalizing away everything like this, or I'm gonna die!

-- Gordon Freeman, kind of

Comment author: cousin_it 14 November 2010 02:25:55PM *  3 points [-]

Another "rationality quote" from the same video:

...Why is it arking straight in the concrete? So is my education about electromagnetism wrong, or is the world wrong?

Comment author: ata 10 November 2010 05:04:36AM *  4 points [-]

A universe that needed someone to observe it in order to collapse it into existence would be a pretty sorry universe indeed.

— Randall Munroe, xkcd – Mutual

Comment author: Spurlock 10 November 2010 03:24:39PM 1 point [-]

That comic gets bonus points for nice use of Hofstadter-ian strange loop.

Comment author: realitygrill 09 November 2010 04:19:41PM 2 points [-]

"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?"

Comment author: ata 09 November 2010 05:00:29AM *  6 points [-]

Rationality quotes: very many from @BadDalaiLama on Twitter.

(Edit: there's also this handy archive.)

Comment author: cupholder 10 November 2010 12:56:26PM 4 points [-]

This one felt quite LW-relevant:

If $1 million makes you happy, that doesn't mean $10 million will make you 10 times as happy.

It's good to be reminded now and then that dollars are not, in fact, utilons.

Comment author: shokwave 10 November 2010 02:26:11PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Unnamed 11 November 2010 08:59:13PM 2 points [-]

Here's some evidence from Stevenson & Wolfers that happiness/life satisfaction is proportional to the log of income: blog post, pdf article.

Comment author: NihilCredo 10 November 2010 08:32:51PM *  5 points [-]

With some constraints, of course.

"Here, have a penny."

"You bastard!"

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 10 November 2010 11:40:05PM 2 points [-]

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?

Comment author: shokwave 11 November 2010 06:18:11AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 11 November 2010 06:26:09AM *  3 points [-]

Well, log does that. But so does square root also. Lots of functions have diminishing marginal returns.

Comment author: b1shop 11 November 2010 06:48:38AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Manfred 11 November 2010 06:55:14AM 2 points [-]

Of course, there's the problem with pathological behavior near 0.

Or the utility of money could quite reasonably be bounded.

Comment author: shokwave 11 November 2010 06:40:48AM 0 points [-]

Hmm. If we grab some study data on wealth's mathematical relationship with utility, we might be able to decide what function best approximates it. As it is, yeah, there is no reason to prefer log to square root to anything other function.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 11 November 2010 06:46:27PM 0 points [-]

Oooh, okay. Diminishing returns, certainly. Just not obvious that it would be "log" or near that.

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.

:)

Comment author: free_rip 09 November 2010 09:02:20PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Zetetic 08 November 2010 09:37:48PM 3 points [-]

Research must contrive to do business at a profit, by which I mean it must produce more effective scientific inquiry than it expends. No doubt it already does so. But it would do well to become conscious of it's economic position and contrive ways of living upon it. -CS Peirce

Comment author: Mass_Driver 08 November 2010 07:13:41PM 4 points [-]

The Universe behaves according to its own laws.

Talmud, Avoda Zara 54b

Comment author: Mass_Driver 08 November 2010 07:13:12PM *  4 points [-]

And should you ask yourselves, "How can we know that the oracle was not spoken by the Lord?" -- if the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by the Lord; the prophet has uttered it presumptuously: do not stand in dread of him.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 November 2010 11:22:42PM *  4 points [-]

(NIV Matthew 10:23) When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

(NIV Matthew 16:27-28) For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

(NIV Matthew 24:34) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things [the end times] have happened.

Comment author: smdaniel2 08 November 2010 06:29:04AM 5 points [-]

half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at

solomon short (david gerrold's fictional character)

Comment author: free_rip 08 November 2010 09:17:44AM 1 point [-]

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people >suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

~ 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.

Comment author: MartinB 08 November 2010 10:47:32AM 1 point [-]

Or friendship, or marriage, or all kinds of other things.

Comment author: MichaelGR 07 November 2010 04:28:24PM 4 points [-]

Overall, however, we've done better by avoiding dragons than by slaying them. -Warren E. Buffett

Comment author: Thomas 07 November 2010 01:07:30PM *  2 points [-]

Q: Don't you think sire, that the TV commercials should look more like real life?

A: On the contrary! I think life should be more like TV commercials.

  • Benny Hill
Comment author: MichaelGR 06 November 2010 05:09:59PM 14 points [-]

A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician.
--Samuel Johnson

Comment author: MichaelGR 06 November 2010 06:48:52PM 6 points [-]

If you can't tell whose side someone is on, they are not on yours. -Warren E. Buffett

Comment author: xamdam 10 November 2010 01:46:16AM 4 points [-]

If after 1/2 hr of poker you can't tell who's the patsy, it's you. - Charles T. Munger

Comment author: Dre 06 November 2010 09:18:05PM 0 points [-]

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)?

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 12:41:10AM *  0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 01:43:45AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 01:51:56AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 05:12:21AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted, but even with communication beforehand, the rational move in a one-shot PD is to defect. Unless there is some way to make binding commitments, or unless there is some kind of weird acausal influence connecting the players. Regardless of whether the other player is human and rational, or silicon and dumb as a rock.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 November 2010 10:51:52AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted, but even with communication beforehand, the rational move in a one-shot PD is to defect.

Taboo "rational".

Unless there is some way to make binding commitments, or unless there is some kind of weird acausal influence connecting the players.

Acausal control is not something additional, it's structure that already exists in a system if you know where to look for it. And typically, it's everywhere, to some extent.

Comment author: shokwave 14 November 2010 01:07:36PM *  1 point [-]

Taboo "rational".

Highest-scoring move, adjective applied to the course that maximises fulfillment of desires.

The best move in a one-shot PD is to defect against a cooperator.

With no communication or precommitment, and with the knowledge that it is a one-shot PD, the overwhelming outcome is both defect. Adding communication to the mix creates a non-zero chance you can convince your opponent to cooperate - which increases the utility of defecting.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 November 2010 02:03:41PM 0 points [-]

Adding communication to the mix creates a non-zero chance you can convince your opponent to cooperate - which increases the utility of defecting.

There is a question of what will actually happen, but also more relevant questions of what will happen if you do X, for various values of X. If you convince the opponent to cooperate, it's one thing, not related to the case of convincing your opponent to cooperate if you cooperate.

Comment author: shokwave 14 November 2010 02:48:57PM 0 points [-]

the case of convincing your opponent to cooperate if you cooperate.

Determine what kinds of control influence your opponent, appear to also be influenced by the same, and then defect when they think you are forced into cooperating because they are forced into cooperating?

Is that a legitimate strategy, or am I misunderstanding what you mean by convincing your opponent to cooperate if you cooperate?

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 05:23:54PM *  0 points [-]

Perplexed, have you come across the decision theory posts here yet? You'll find them pretty interesting, I think.

LW Wiki for the Prisoner's Dilemma

LW Wiki for timeless decision theory (start with the posts- Eliezer's PDF is very long and spends more time justifying than explaining).

Essentially, this may be beyond the level of humans to implement, but there are decision theories for an AI which do strictly better than the usual causal decision theory, without being exploitable. Two of these would cooperate with each other on the PD, given a chance to communicate beforehand.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 08:09:38PM 1 point [-]

Perplexed, have you come across the decision theory posts here yet? You'll find them pretty interesting, I think.

Yes, I have read them, and commented on them. Negatively, for the most part. If any of these ideas are ever published in the peer reviewed literature, I will be both surprised and eager to read more.

there are decision theories for an AI which do strictly better than the usual causal decision theory, without being exploitable. Two of these would cooperate with each other on the PD, given a chance to communicate beforehand.

I think that you may have been misled by marketing hype. Even the proponents of those theories admit that they do not do strictly better (or at least as good) on all problems. They do better on some problems, and worse on others. Furthermore, sharing source code only provides a guarantee that the observed source is current if that source code cannot be changed. In other words, an AI that uses this technique to achieve commitment has also forsaken (at least temporarily) the option of learning from experience.

I am intrigued by the analogy between these acausal decision theories and the analysis of Hamilton's rule in evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, I am completely mystified as to the motivation that the SIAI has for pursuing these topics. If the objective is to get two AIs to cooperate with each other there are a plethora of ways to do that already well known in the game theory canon. An exchange of hostages, for example, is one obvious way to achieve mutual enforceable commitment. Why is there this fascination with the bizarre here? Why so little reference to the existing literature?

Comment author: WrongBot 09 November 2010 09:24:37PM *  1 point [-]

So far as I understand the situation, the SIAI is working on decision theory because they want to be able to create an AI that can be guaranteed not to modify its own decision function.

There are circumstances where CDT agents will self-modify to use a different decision theory (e.g. Parfit's Hitchhiker). If this happens (they believe), it will present a risk of goal-distortion, which is unFriendly.

Put another way: the objective isn't to get two AIs to cooperate, the objective is to make it so that an AI won't need to alter its decision function in order to cooperate with another AI. (Or any other theoretical bargaining partner.)

Does that make any sense? As a disclaimer, I definitely do not understand the issues here as well as the SIAI folks working on them.

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 09:43:10PM 1 point [-]

I don't think that's quite right- a sufficiently smart Friendly CDT agent could self-modify into a TDT (or higher decision theory) agent without compromising Friendliness (albeit with the ugly hack of remaining CDT with respect to consequences that happened causally before the change).

As far as I understand SIAI, the idea is that decision theory is the basis of their proposed AI architecture, and they think it's more promising than other AGI approaches and better suited to Friendliness content.

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 09:48:24PM 0 points [-]

There are circumstances where CDT agents will self-modify to use a different decision theory (e.g. Parfit's Hitchhiker).

Does that make any sense?

Not to me. But a reference might repair that deficiency on my part.

Comment author: JGWeissman 09 November 2010 08:19:56PM 1 point [-]

They do better on some problems, and worse on others.

Do you have an example of a problem on which CDT or EDT does better than TDT?

Comment author: Perplexed 09 November 2010 08:25:35PM 2 points [-]

I have yet to see a description of TDT which allows me to calculate what TDT does on an arbitrary problem. But I do know that I have seen long lists from Eliezer of problems that TDT does not solve that he thinks it ought to be improved so as to solve.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 09 November 2010 05:19:20AM 0 points [-]

Not necessarily. Various decision theories can come into play here. It depends precisely on what you mean by the prisoner's paradox. If you are playing a true one shot where you have no information about the entity in question then that might be true. But if you are playing a true one shot where you each before making the decision have each player have access to the other player's source code then defecting may not be the best solution. Some of the decision theory posts have discussed this. (Note that knowing each others' source code is not nearly as strong an assumption as it might seem since one common idea in game theory is to look at what game theory occurs when people know when the other players know your strategy. (I'm oversimplifying some technical details here. I don't fully understand all the issues. I'm not a game theorist. Add any other relevant disclaimers.))

Comment author: Document 06 November 2010 07:22:19PM 0 points [-]

Sounds like one for the quotes page for "Default to Good" at TV Tropes. (Link omitted due to time hazard.)

Comment author: XiXiDu 06 November 2010 03:44:52PM 7 points [-]

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.

Richard Feynman

Comment author: Tesseract 05 November 2010 08:34:18PM 23 points [-]

Kołakowski's Law, or The Law of the Infinite Cornucopia:

For any given doctrine that one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which to support it.

Leszek Kołakowski

Comment author: Drawbacks 23 November 2010 08:09:40PM 2 points [-]

If you set out to beat a dog, you're sure to find a stick. -- Old Yiddish Proverb

Comment author: wedrifid 05 November 2010 08:39:55PM 0 points [-]

I like it.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 November 2010 09:28:16AM *  3 points [-]

del

Comment author: jimmy 05 November 2010 10:19:18PM 5 points [-]

That doesn't sound right.

To me, it seems like:

(Philosophy -> Science) and (Art -> Engineering).

Comment author: DSimon 04 November 2010 08:06:19PM *  21 points [-]

Man, I'm amazing! I'm a machine that turns FOOD into IDEAS!

-- T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics #539

Comment author: ciantic 07 November 2010 08:18:19PM *  9 points [-]

I know this is well known, but to supplement the T-Rex:

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems.

-Alfréd Rényi/Paul Erdős

Comment author: JoshuaZ 23 November 2010 11:05:24PM 14 points [-]

Yes, and don't forget the dual result that a comathematician is a device for turning cotheorems into ffee.

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 November 2010 11:03:52PM 1 point [-]

And a cat is a device for turning kibble into cuddle.

Comment author: MichaelGR 04 November 2010 09:10:40PM 13 points [-]

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.

Comment author: bentarm 04 November 2010 10:56:05PM 2 points [-]

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

Comment author: Perplexed 05 November 2010 10:54:44PM 2 points [-]

[one interpretation of Oppenheimer:] 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.

Quibble: Two things you might have missed:

  • Oppenheimer was talking about "deep things in science", not about "truths."
  • He said "possible to find them", not "possible to understand them".
Comment author: stochastic 05 November 2010 10:35:07PM 0 points [-]

<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.

Comment author: orthonormal 09 November 2010 12:38:46AM 4 points [-]

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!

Comment author: Emile 06 November 2010 11:38:51AM *  3 points [-]

The quote syntax is

> quote goes here

Which becomes

quote goes here

Comment author: MichaelGR 04 November 2010 09:09:50PM 7 points [-]

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

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 09:55:52PM 1 point [-]

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.)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 November 2010 11:28:01PM 1 point [-]

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.)

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 10:23:06PM 4 points [-]

Scribbles on maps, particularly in 1815 and 1919, had some largish effects.

Comment author: gwern 07 November 2010 09:00:55PM 1 point [-]

The partitions of Korea and Vietnam are some more recent examples; nor have we seen the last of the largish effects of the former.

Comment author: DanArmak 04 November 2010 10:53:54PM *  23 points [-]

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.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 November 2010 11:02:26PM 5 points [-]

People were killed because someone neglected to sharpen their pencil. That's "scribbles on a piece of paper" for you.

I suppose it would be in bad taste to find that rather amusing. Or at least to admit it.

Comment author: Drawbacks 23 November 2010 10:23:09PM 1 point [-]

"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

Comment author: Pfft 19 December 2010 12:48:27AM 0 points [-]

What's the source for this? Googling "Not 1982" is not helpful... I did find the following amusing quote though:

His engineers were once consulting [Tsar Nicholas] as to the expediency of taking the line from St Petersburg to Moscow by a slight detour to avoid some very troublesome obstacles. The Tsar took up a ruler and with his pencil drew a straight line from the old metropolis. Handing back the chart he peremptorily said "There, gentlemen, that is to be the route for the line!"

"The Trans-Siberian Railway". In The Living Age, seventh series volume five, 1899

Comment author: Manfred 19 December 2010 12:59:17AM 1 point [-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_the_Nine_O%27Clock_News#Books_and_miscellaneous

My google-fu is strong-ish. Still, not a particularly reliable source.

Comment author: gwern 19 December 2010 12:59:19AM 0 points [-]

I wonder if Nicholas was acting in the same spirit as King Canute and likewise has been subsequently misinterpreted. (I've seen the Canute story mentioned as an example of being power-mad.) Nicholas's intention could have been something like 'Gentlemen, you were chosen for your competence in engineering and expertise in dealing with such details; I have made my general wish known to you; kindly implement it and do not bother me with what is your job.'

Comment author: James_K 05 November 2010 03:39:03AM 5 points [-]

In circumstances like that I find I have to laugh, if only to keep from weeping.

Comment author: MichaelGR 06 November 2010 08:12:03PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Zetetic 04 November 2010 09:00:38PM 7 points [-]

Many a man has cherished for years as his hobby some vague shadow of an idea, too meaningless to be positively false; he has, nevertheless, passionately loved it, has made it his companion by day and by night, and has given to it his strength and his life, leaving all other occupations for its sake, and in short has lived with it and for it, until it has become, as it were, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and then he has waked up some bright morning to find it gone, clean vanished away like the beautiful Melusina of the fable, and the essence of his life gone with it. I have myself known such a man; and who can tell how many histories of circle-squarers, metaphysicians, astrologers, and what not, may not be told in the old German story?

Charles Sanders Peirce

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 09:12:17PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: XiXiDu 04 November 2010 12:37:19PM 15 points [-]

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).

Comment author: Pavitra 07 November 2010 01:04:37AM 3 points [-]

That's kind of depressing.

Comment author: shokwave 04 November 2010 03:47:46PM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: XiXiDu 04 November 2010 12:59:29PM *  5 points [-]

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:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Comment author: NihilCredo 04 November 2010 09:08:04PM 11 points [-]

I shared this on another website and got this comment:

Heh, that's one way to pass the Turing Test. Don't make your bot smarter, make it seek out dumb people.

Comment author: Tuna-Fish 05 November 2010 12:33:17PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: aausch 04 November 2010 03:17:11AM *  14 points [-]

"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something. That's the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then — to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the only thing for you. Look what a lot of things there are to learn."

— T.H. White (The Once and Future King)

Comment author: soreff 04 November 2010 10:57:24PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: avalot 06 November 2010 09:47:25PM 0 points [-]

Yes, and I think this is the one big crucial exception... That is the one bit of knowledge that is truly evil. The one datum that is unbearable torture on the mind.

In that sense, one could define an adult mind as a normal (child) mind poisoned by the knowledge-of-death toxin. The older the mind, the more extensive the damage.

Most of us might see it more as a catalyst than a poison, but I think that's insanity justifying itself. We're all walking around in a state of deep existential panic, and that makes us weaker than children.

Comment author: rwallace 07 November 2010 04:39:31PM 3 points [-]

Well, it's not the knowledge of death that's evil, it's the actual phenomenon -- there's not much point blaming the messenger for the bad news. Especially not now we're at the stage where we're beginning to have a chance to do something about it.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 06 November 2010 10:24:54PM 2 points [-]

Ernest Becker agrees with you, but I always read the one star reviews first.

For myself, I've lost touch with Becker's ontology. I'm reduced to making the lame suggestion of playing Go in tournaments in order to practice managing a limited stock of time, such as 70 years.

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2010 03:23:23AM 6 points [-]

There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would not have enough to live upon.

-Samuel Butler

Comment author: PeterS 03 November 2010 09:51:17PM 5 points [-]

Isaac Newton's argument for intelligent design:

Were all the planets as swift as Mercury or as slow as Saturn or his satellites; or were the several velocities otherwise much greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the distances from the centers about which they move been greater or less than they are (as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than their gravities); or had the quantity of matter in the sun or in Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth (and by consequence their gravitating power) been greater or less than it is; the primary planets could not have revolved about the sun nor the secondary ones about Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth, in concentric circles as they do, but would have moved in hyperbolas or parabolas or in ellipses very eccentric. To make this system, therefore, with all its motions, required a cause which understood and compared together the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and planets and the gravitating powers resulting from thence.... And to compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies, argues that cause to be, not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in mechanics and geometry.

-- Letter to Richard Bentley

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 03 November 2010 11:26:44PM *  6 points [-]

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.

But how the matter should divide itself into two sorts, and that part of it, which is fit to compose a shining body, should fall down into one mass, and make a sun, and the rest, which is fit to compose an opaque body, should coalesce, not into one great body, like the shining matter, but into many little ones; or, if the sun, at first, were an opaque body, like the planets, or the planets lucid bodies, like the sun, how he alone should be changed into a shining body, whilst all they continue opaque, or all they be changed into opaque ones, whilst he remains unchanged, I do not think more explicable by mere natural causes, but am forced to ascribe it to the counsel and contrivance of a voluntary agent.

—Isaac Newton, Four Letters From Sir Isaac Newton To Doctor Bentley Containing Some Arguments In Proof Of A Deity.

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:30:42AM 53 points [-]

If you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are gone, a piano top … that comes along makes a fortuitous life preserver. But this is not to say that the best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top. I think that we are clinging to a great many piano tops in accepting yesterday’s fortuitous contrivings.

Buckminster Fuller

Comment author: xamdam 03 November 2010 01:41:32PM 13 points [-]

We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings.

Dr. Manhattan (Watchmen)

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:52:53AM 25 points [-]

Go down deep enough into anything and you will find mathematics.

Dean Schlicter

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:46:09AM 18 points [-]

If you haven’t found something strange during the day, it hasn’t been much of a day.

John Archibald Wheeler

Comment author: PeterS 03 November 2010 05:22:17AM *  20 points [-]

Rule I

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

Rule II

Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

Rule III

The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple, and always consonant to itself. . .

Rule IV

In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

Isaac Newton, Philosophiae naturalis: Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy

Comment author: [deleted] 03 November 2010 05:21:09AM 17 points [-]

Getting caught up in style and throwing away victory is something for the lower ranks to do. Captains can't even think about doing such a carefree thing. Don't try to be a good guy. It doesn't matter who owes who. From the instant they enter into a war, both sides are evil.

Related to: Politics, Protection

Comment author: Tesseract 03 November 2010 10:24:21AM 5 points [-]

If oxen and horses and lions had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men, horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses and oxen to look like oxen, and each would make the gods’ bodies have the same shape as they themselves had.

Xenophanes

Comment author: shokwave 08 November 2010 04:18:04PM 5 points [-]

More likely they would write a treatise on how God wants them to keep pulling carts around.

Comment author: simplyeric 04 November 2010 05:43:45PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 06 November 2010 01:09:59PM 0 points [-]

this should at the very least be turned into a short story.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 03 November 2010 06:50:47PM 8 points [-]

I'm not sure this makes sense. Empirically many human cultures have deities that are shaped like animals.

Comment author: fortyeridania 08 November 2010 03:49:08PM 0 points [-]

Voted up. My quibble is that gods are often anthropomorphic in mind, if not in body.

Comment author: Larks 03 November 2010 03:53:03PM 4 points [-]

Well, the Egyptians had animal-headed gods.

Comment author: majus 03 November 2010 06:40:15PM 2 points [-]

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides." [Lettres Persanes, no 59]

Comment author: Larks 03 November 2010 07:22:10PM 5 points [-]

Surely he would be circular?

Comment author: Perplexed 03 November 2010 02:54:38AM *  14 points [-]

David Hume was right to predict that superstition would survive for hundreds of years after his death, but how could he have anticipated that his own work would inspire Kant to invent a whole new package of superstitions? Or that the incoherent system of Marx would move vast populations to engineer their own ruin? Or that the infantile rantings of the author of Mein Kampf would be capable of bringing the whole world to war?

Perhaps we will one day succeed in immunizing our societies against such bouts of collective idiocy by establishing a social contract in which each child is systematically instructed in Humean skepticism. Such a new Emile would learn about the psychological weaknesses to which Homo sapiens is prey, and so would understand the wisdom of treating all authorities - political leaders and social role-models, academics and teachers, philosophers and prophets, poets and pop stars - as so many potential rogues and knoves, each out to exploit the universal human hunger for social status. He would therefore appreciate the necessity of doing all of his own thinking for himself. He would understand why and when to trust his neighbors. Above all, he would waste no time yearning for utopias that are incompatible with human nature.

-- Ken Binmore, in Natural Justice, p56

Comment author: MichaelVassar 03 November 2010 11:23:13PM 7 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 12:10:43AM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 November 2010 03:31:14AM 1 point [-]

I like the sentiment, but - instructed in Humean skepticism? Isn't that going overboard in the opposite direction?

Comment author: Perplexed 03 November 2010 04:37:49AM *  4 points [-]

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":

It eventually dawned on me that I was reading the work of an emperor who was clothed in nothing more than the obscurity of his prose.

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.

Comment author: joschu 03 November 2010 07:05:45AM *  4 points [-]

Out-of-sample error equals in-sample error plus a penalty for model complexity

Y.S. Abu-Mostafa, in explaining the VC inequality of PAC learning.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 November 2010 09:43:19PM 20 points [-]

The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake.

H.L. Mencken, Minority Report.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2010 11:31:11PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 November 2010 09:48:54PM 1 point [-]

I am not sure I get it.

Comment author: sketerpot 02 November 2010 10:16:27PM *  8 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2010 08:49:16PM *  23 points [-]

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

Comment author: magfrump 04 November 2010 06:52:50AM 7 points [-]

This was especially exciting due to my newfound knowledge that ballad meter can be sung to the tune of the Gilligan's Island theme.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 03 November 2010 06:18:41PM *  12 points [-]

Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will, Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still.

What evidence is there that Galileo was tortured?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 November 2010 06:20:10PM 9 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 04 November 2010 08:00:44PM *  9 points [-]

So far as I know, he wasn't, just placed under house arrest.

According to Owen Gingerich's The Great Copernicus Chase, the 1633 decree calling Galileo to be interrogated* read, in part, as follows:

Galileo Galilei ... is to be interrogated concerning the accusation, even threatened with torture, and if he sustains it, proceeding to an abjuration of the vehement [suspicion of heresy] before the full Congregation of the Holy Office, sentenced to imprisonment....

(Emphasis added.) Gingerich goes on to say:

On the next page the results of the interrogation are recorded. In Italian are Galileo's words: 'I do not hold and have not held this opinion of Copernicus since the command was intimated to me that I must abandon it.' Then he was again told to speak the truth under the threat of torture. He responded: 'I am here to submit, and I have not held this opinion since the decision was pronounced, as I have stated.' Finally, there is a notation that nothing further could be done, and this time the document is properly signed in Galileo's hand. Galileo was sent back to his house at Arcetri, outside Florence, where he remained under house arrest until his death in 1642.

(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 ><.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 04 November 2010 06:38:48PM 9 points [-]

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.

In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothesis (thus maintaining a facade of separation between science and that church). For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission. [...]

Earlier, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton."[48] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[49] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 04 November 2010 06:30:21PM *  5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 04 November 2010 01:51:40AM *  3 points [-]

What evidence is there that Galileo was tortured?

A gun can be used to commit a crime even if it isn't fired.

Comment author: steven0461 04 November 2010 02:36:06AM *  3 points [-]

"Torture" here is analogous to "shooting", not "crime".

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 04 November 2010 02:55:00AM *  4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Emile 04 November 2010 06:55:47PM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 04 November 2010 07:13:38PM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Tiiba 03 November 2010 03:03:59PM 1 point [-]

I want to upvote this twice.

Comment author: byrnema 04 November 2010 01:08:47AM *  3 points [-]

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?

Comment author: [deleted] 06 November 2010 07:01:13PM *  4 points [-]

I suspect it may be something similar to what NihilCredo said; rationalist quotes from theist sources are just so much fun.

Comment author: Perplexed 04 November 2010 03:01:46AM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 04 November 2010 03:44:13AM *  5 points [-]

So should every every metaphor be voted down? Or just personifying metaphors? Or just metaphors mentioning deities?

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.

Comment author: Alicorn 04 November 2010 01:10:49AM 6 points [-]

It's good art advocating for science.

Comment author: Unnamed 04 November 2010 01:47:12AM 4 points [-]

It beautifully promotes Joy in the Merely Real, and strongly encourages the pursuit of knowledge.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 03 November 2010 07:07:04AM 3 points [-]

Who is Catherine Faber? Has she made anything public about herself other than this wonderful poem? Google and Wikipedia were not immediately helpful.

Comment author: Emile 03 November 2010 08:56:00AM 6 points [-]

From her website:

This song was inspired when a friend of mine complained to me about a run-in with some Creationists, and asked "what can you say to such people?" The first words that popped out of my mouth were "humans wrote the bible. God wrote the rocks."

From her bio:

Cat Faber is the offspring of a sasquatch and a space alien, which gave her a unique perspective on things like sports and religion (if those can be said to be separate subjects). Her taste in music is likewise unusual, combining a love for the folksong style with an interest in subjects like science and magic. This made her such a natural for filk that it is astonishing she didn't discover it until she was nearly full grown. She sang from babyhood, though her sasquatch parent maintains she was tone-deaf until about the sixth grade. In 1996 she hooked up with Arlene Hills to form the filk duo Echo's Children.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2010 08:42:37PM 14 points [-]

For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it.

~René Descartes, Discourse on the Method

Comment author: AlanCrowe 02 November 2010 10:17:29PM 9 points [-]

If, instead of welcoming inquiry and criticism, the admirers of a great author accept his writings as authoritative, both in their excellences and in their defects, the most serious injury is done to truth. In matters of philosophy and science, authority has ever been the great opponent of truth. A despotic calm is usually the triumph of error. In the republic of the sciences, sedition and even anarchy are beneficial in the long run to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

William Stanley Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, 1871: p.275-6

Comment author: Rain 02 November 2010 09:21:06PM 9 points [-]

I am still learning.

-- Michaelangelo's motto

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 November 2010 09:33:42PM 7 points [-]

A book is a machine to think with.

I. A. Richards, "Principles of Literary Criticism"

Comment author: satt 02 November 2010 10:39:19PM 3 points [-]

Reminiscent of Umberto Eco describing the novel as "a machine for generating interpretations".

Comment author: sketerpot 04 November 2010 10:43:29PM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 November 2010 09:36:22PM *  6 points [-]

Beware of no man more than of yourself; we carry our worst enemies within us.

Charles H. Spurgeon

Comment author: simplyeric 04 November 2010 06:58:10PM 3 points [-]

"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).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 November 2010 07:26:15PM 1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: sketerpot 02 November 2010 10:18:42PM *  10 points [-]

Not always. I know someone who narrowly avoided Auschwitz who would beg to differ; her worst enemies were definitely external.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 03 November 2010 11:22:17AM 14 points [-]

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.

Comment author: sketerpot 03 November 2010 08:36:16PM 11 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: MartinB 03 November 2010 11:57:21AM 2 points [-]

It is hard to reconstruct the reasons why.

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.

Comment author: roland 07 November 2010 10:03:12PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: simplicio 10 November 2010 09:54:52PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 03 November 2010 11:26:00PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 November 2010 12:37:08AM *  2 points [-]

?

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.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 13 November 2010 03:19:16AM 2 points [-]

Prevent the Holocaust.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 13 November 2010 03:23:58AM 2 points [-]

How do you think that could have been done?

Comment author: MichaelVassar 14 November 2010 01:08:38PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 14 November 2010 02:26:53PM 0 points [-]

On the other hand, the universe doesn't guarantee that apocalypse is scaled to your abilities.

It's plausible that the Holocaust could have been averted if people had done more to optimize their efforts against it, but by no means guaranteed.

Comment author: MartinB 04 November 2010 12:49:47AM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Pavitra 04 November 2010 07:14:20PM *  5 points [-]

I guess when the guys that hate your guts get into power, is a good time to start packing.

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.

Comment author: MartinB 04 November 2010 08:04:36PM *  2 points [-]

Should I move?

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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 November 2010 11:09:20AM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: MartinB 04 November 2010 11:19:57AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 November 2010 11:53:40AM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: MartinB 04 November 2010 12:29:51PM 1 point [-]

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..

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 November 2010 12:49:01PM 1 point [-]

This is the one that surprised me.

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:21:09AM 10 points [-]

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 ;-).

Comment author: anonym 03 November 2010 06:27:08AM 1 point [-]

Truth will sooner come out from error than from confusion.

Francis Bacon

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 November 2010 11:01:35AM 3 points [-]
Comment deleted 08 November 2010 07:15:59PM [-]
Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 November 2010 07:25:07PM 1 point [-]

Use the search box to check any quotation you're thinking of posting.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 November 2010 09:30:40PM 5 points [-]

'Tis with our Judgments as our Watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.

Pope, Essay on Criticism

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 02 November 2010 09:06:51PM *  4 points [-]

There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know
Everybody find confusion
In conclusion he concluded long ago
And it puzzle me to learn
That tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know,
Very quickly he will fight...
He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

~ A Puzzlement, The King and I

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2010 10:07:31PM *  1 point [-]

Not a quote about rationalism, but probably relevant to Less Wrong:

Pure Death

We looked, we loved, and therewith instantly

Death became terrible to you and me.

By love we disenthralled our natural terror

From every comfortable philosopher

Or tall, grey doctor of divinity:

Death stood at last in his true rank and order.

It happened soon, so wild of heart were we,

Exchange of gifts grew to a malady:

Their worth rose always higher on each side

Till there seemed nothing but ungivable pride

That yet remained ungiven, and this degree

Called a conclusion not to be denied.

Then we at last bethought ourselves, made shift

And simultaneously this final gift

Gave: each with shaking hands unlocks

The sinister, long, brass-bound coffin-box,

Unwraps pure death, with such bewilderment

As greeted our love's first accomplishment.

--Robert Graves

Comment author: gwern 26 November 2010 08:16:11PM 1 point [-]

I read this one last week:

 "When human beings found out about death
They sent the dog to Chukwu with a message:
They wanted to be let back to the house of life.
They didn't want to end up lost forever
Like burnt wood disappearing into smoke
And ashes that get blown away to nothing.
Instead, they saw their souls in a flock at twilight
Cawing and headed back for the same old roosts
(The dog was meant to tell all this to Chukwu)..."

--"A Dog Was Crying Tonight in Wicklow Also", Seamus Heaney, pg 66, The Spirit Level (1996)