= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alexandros comments on Less Wrong Rationality and Mainstream Philosophy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (328)
I think it's absurd to equate the claim "Certain philosophers can have ideas useful to LessWrong" with "this unqualified person on the internet has found a proof that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong", and the fact that you're framing it as such indicates that you are highly motivated in your argumentation.
As for the hypothetical premise that "the reference class "academic philosophers" and the reference class "random nut on the internet" have several properties in common", I invite you to look to the top right of this website for the endorsement (of and by) the Future of Humanity institute that does, you guessed it, academic philosophy. Also refer to the numerous occurrences throughout this website of top contributors citing the FHI as a valid outlet for efficient donations towards existential risk mitigation. Is LessWrong suggesting we donate to people with the credibility of 'random nuts on the internet'? Or is there perhaps some inconsistency which is what the people all over this thread are pointing out?
I actually have no great feelings about the argument either way. I'm using that as an example of a case where given a sufficiently strong prior you would accept Eliezer's reasoning. I'm also suggesting that Eliezer appears to have that sufficiently strong prior.
Please note that I made no claims about my own thoughts on academic philosophy, and specifically stated that I don't share that hypothetical premise. But from Eliezer's own statements, it appears that he does have that pre-existing view of philosophers. And given that he has already formed that view he is being perfectly reasonable in not bothering to change that view without sufficiently strong evidence.
So what you're actually saying is that given an arbitrary premise held arbitrarily strongly, one can rationally reject an arbitrary amount of evidence. I guess this is true, if trivially so.
What I think you've missed is that the premise is not shielded from discussion and can be itself judged, especially on this website which rejects theism for the exact reason of starting from an arbitrary premise.
(I haven't downvoted you by the way)
Yes, I am saying that. However, I'm also saying that from what Eliezer has said, I don't think his view of academic philosophy is an arbitrary one, but one formed from reading a reasonable amount of philosophy. Nor do I think the amount of evidence that's been presented is arbitrary - it certainly doesn't, by itself, convince me that this group of people have much to say, and I'm starting out from a neutral position, not a negative one.