= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed 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)
Here is one interpretation.
The standard sequences explanation of cognitive biases and how to battle against them on Less Wrong? "Useful."
Yet another explanation of cognitive biases and how to battle against them in a mainstream philosophy book? "Not useful."
Dissolution of difficult philosophical problem like free will to cognitive algorithm on Less Wrong? "Useful, impressive."
Continuing disputation about difficult philosophical problems like free will in mainstream philosophy journals? "Not useful."
Dissolution of common (but easy) philosophical problem arising from language misuse in mainstream philosophy journals? "Not useful."
Explanation of how to dissolve common (but easy) philosophical problems arising from language misuse in LessWrong? "Useful".
Good stuff of various kinds, surrounded by other good stuff on LessWrong? "Useful".
Good stuff of various kinds, surrounded by error, confusion, and nonsense in mainstream philosophy journals? "Not useful."
I'm not sure I agree with all of this, but it is pretty much what I hear Eliezer and others saying.
Yeah, if that's what's being claimed, that's the double standard stuff I was talking about.
Of course there's error, confusion, and nonsense in just about any large chunk of literature. Mainstream philosophy is particularly bad, but of course what I plan to do is pluck the good bits out and share just those things on Less Wrong.