Vaniver comments on Best career models for doing research? - Less Wrong

27 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 07 December 2010 04:25PM

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

Comments (999)

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

Comment author: Vaniver 10 December 2010 06:21:41PM 5 points [-]

Given the reactions to it by Eliezer, Alicorn, and Roko, who seem very intelligent and know more about this topic than I do, I'm not so sure.

This line of argument really bothers me. What does it mean for E, A, and R to seem very intelligent? As far as I can tell, the necessary conclusion is "I will believe a controversial statement of theirs without considering it." When you word it like that, the standards are a lot higher than "seem very intelligent", or at least narrower- you need to know their track record on decisions like this.

(The controversial statement is "you don't want to know about X," not X itself, by the way.)

Comment author: katydee 10 December 2010 06:27:56PM 9 points [-]

I am willing to accept the idea that (intelligent) specialists in a field may know more about their field than nonspecialists and are therefore more qualified to evaluate matters related to their field than I.

Comment author: Vaniver 10 December 2010 06:37:09PM 5 points [-]

Good point, though I would point out that you need E, A, and R to be specialists when it comes to how people react to X, not just X, and I would say there's evidence that's not true.

Comment author: katydee 10 December 2010 06:44:08PM *  1 point [-]

I agree, but I know what conclusion I would draw from the belief in question if I actually believed it, so the issue of their knowledge of how people react is largely immaterial to me in particular. I was mostly posting to provide a data point in favor of keeping the material off LW, not to attempt to dissolve the issue completely or anything.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 December 2010 06:27:07PM 0 points [-]

When you word it like that, the standards are a lot higher than "seem very intelligent", or at least narrower- you need to know their track record on decisions like this.

You don't need any specific kind of proof, you already have some state of knowledge about correctness of such statements. There is no "standard of evidence" for forming a state of knowledge, it just may be that without the evidence that meets that "standard" you don't expect to reach some level of certainty, or some level of stability of your state of knowledge (i.e. low expectation of changing your mind).