gjm comments on Issues, Bugs, and Requested Features - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 February 2009 04:45PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (628)
Tags: meta

Comments (628)

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

Comment author: gjm 31 March 2009 12:12:26AM 3 points [-]

It wasn't clear to me whether the post itself was 9/11 truthism rather than merely using 9/11 truthism as an example. After all, the title was "Seeing patterns where they don't exist" or something of the kind. I did think it would have been considerably improved (and looked less like preaching) by having a link to the lengthy Litany of 9/11 Conspiracy Evidence rather than incorporating the whole thing in the post.

... Though "And" has stated elsewhere that s/he believes 9/11 was an inside job, so it looks like you were right.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 31 March 2009 12:34:08PM 3 points [-]

Well... it's down the memory hole, but it exists. And it will accept comments if anyone feels like a spot of debunking.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 April 2009 02:22:21AM 1 point [-]

So, you think it would be okay to make a post about it as long as I was on the right side of the argument?

Comment author: gjm 02 April 2009 01:39:13AM 4 points [-]

I wasn't commenting on whether it was OK to make a post about it, but on Eliezer's description of it as "9/11 truthism". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

For what it's worth, I think the question "how should one evaluate a big messy pile of ambiguous alleged evidence for something?" is a reasonable one, and any number of Things Widely Considered Irrational might make interesting test cases -- "9/11 truthism", ghosts, healing miracles, whatever. But:

  1. Your post clearly gave Eliezer (and also me, for what it's worth, though I was more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt) the impression that it was preaching masquerading as a useful case study.

I think the most reliable way to avoid giving that impression is to take steps to make what you write not useful as preaching. (For instance: disclaimers along the lines of "This is the opinion of a tiny minority only, and I happen to be one of them. Discount as you see fit.")

  1. There are some topics (of which this may be one; I don't know, but maybe Eliezer does) whose discussion consistently generates more heat than light. It might be entirely reasonable to do away with posts on such topics unless they have very strong counterbalancing virtues.
Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit