shaih comments on Yes, a blog. - Less Wrong

88 Post author: Academian 19 November 2010 01:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (106)
Tags: meta community history

Comments (106)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shaih 19 February 2013 07:10:26AM -2 points [-]

I'm not saying a view point on whether I agree or not with your premise, I don't think this is the best group ever but I have not been here long enough to know if others do.

I would however like to point out

Yet, in spite of these priors, the group you consider yourself member of is somehow the true best group ever? Really? Where's hard evidence for this? I'm tempted to point to Eliezer outright making things up on costs of cryonics multiple times, and ignoring corrections from me and others, in case halo effect prevents you from seeing that he's not really extraordinarily less wrong.

is full of Ad hominem errors that to me distract from your argument

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 19 February 2013 07:35:19AM *  1 point [-]

There's no ad hominem here. The original post claims that LessWrong is great, and taw is pointing out some things that suggest that LessWrong is not great. An ad hominem here would be attacking Academian, not attacking Eliezer.

Comment author: Dorikka 19 February 2013 12:56:54PM 1 point [-]

Typo: Academician->Academian

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 19 February 2013 06:46:32PM 2 points [-]

Whoops. Thanks!

Comment author: shaih 19 February 2013 07:39:45AM 0 points [-]

How does attacking Eliezer here add to the argument?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 February 2013 04:09:31PM *  1 point [-]

Qiaochu is questioning the presence of "ad hominem". This issue doesn't depend on the worth of the argument whose discussion hypothetically contains the error.

Comment author: Larks 19 February 2013 04:35:04PM 0 points [-]

and Taw was attacking Eliezer because Eliezer is so associated with LW, and LW with him, that problems with one will often (at least be taken as) problems with the other. If Eliezer is systematically wrong, so is the sequences, and thereby probably LW too.

Comment author: beoShaffer 19 February 2013 07:48:03AM 2 points [-]

To a large extent, and especially at the time this was written LW was practically synonymous with Eliezer. Also, Taw is (at least primarily) referring to things Eliezer Said on LW, thus its seems pretty relevant to the question of LW's greatness.

Comment author: shaih 19 February 2013 07:50:52AM 2 points [-]

I think I understand now thank you.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit