Rationality Quotes: April 2011
You all know the rules:
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (384)
-- Surviving The World
I initially parsed that as meaning something like "we're clearly not getting the mechanics of evolution across, since people in the comics [and by extension writers] are happy to treat it as something that can produce superheroes". But in context it actually seems to mean "let's create some superheroes to demonstrate the efficacy of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt".
Comic exaggeration, sure, and I'm probably supposed to interpret the word "evolution" very loosely if I want to take the quote at all seriously. But in view of the former, I still can't help but think that there's something fundamentally naive about the latter.
I didn't quote the commentary under the comic for a reason.
Hasn't it been pointed out here before that super-powered mutants are exactly not what we would expect from evolution?
Yes, but the quote is new.
(Courtesy of my dad)
Arthur Rimbaud, 1873
Paul Graham "What I've learned from Hacker News"
I meant to say that I think the theory I was testing has been disproved, or at least dealt a major blow, which is why I'm shifting my thinking towards something a bit different. Mission of being wrong accomplished!
-- The Killers in This is Your Life
"If you choose to follow a religion where, for example, devout Catholics who are trying to be good people are all going to Hell but child molestors go to Heaven (as long as they were "saved" at some point), that's your choice, but it's fucked up. Maybe a God who operates by those rules does exist. If so, fuck Him." --- Bill Zellar's suicide note, in regards to his parents' religion
I love this passage. If a god as described in the Bible did exist, following him would be akin to following Voldemort: fidelity simply because he was powerful. This isn't precisely a rationality quote, but it does have a bit of the morality-independent-of-religion thing. (The rest of the note is beautiful and eloquent as well.)
I think we should keep some sort op separation between "rationality quotes" and "atheism quotes". You can stretch this to be a rationality quote, but it does require a stretch. Just because a quote argues against the existence of a god doesn't make it particularly rational.
There are other similarities too. e.g. Voldemort's human form died and rose again; his (first) death was foretold in prophesy, involved a betrayal (albeit in the opposite direction), and left his followers anxiously awaiting his return; "And these signs shall follow them that believe; ... they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents..." (Mark 16:17-18); ...
So, who wants to join the First Church of Voldemort?
On boldness:
-- Augiedog, Half the Day is Night
(Edit: I should mention that the linked story is MLP fanfic. The MLP fandom may be a memetic hazard; it seems to have taken over my life for the past several days, though I tend to do that with most things, so YMMV. Proceed with caution.)
"I can't make myself believe something that I don't believe" —Ricky Gervais, in discussing his atheism
Reminds me of the scene in HPMOR where Harry makes Draco a scientist.
--George Spencer Brown in The Laws of Form, 1969.
-- PartiallyClips, "Windmill"
I thought the correct response should be "Is the thing in fact a giant or a windmill?" Rather than considering which way our maps should be biased, what's the actual territory?
I do tech support, and often get responses like "I think so," and I usually respond with "Let's find out."
Giant/windmill differentiation is not a zero-cost operation.
In the "evil giant vs windmill" question, the prior probability of it being an evil giant is vanishingly close to zero, and the prior probability of it being a windmill is pretty much one minus the chance that it's an evil giant. Spending effort discovering the actual territory when every map ever shows it's a windmill sounds like a waste of effort.
What about a chunk of probability for the case of where it's neither giant nor windmill?
Very few things barring the evil giant have the ability to imitate a windmill. I did leave some wiggle room with
because I wished to allow for the chance it may be a bloody great mimic.
A missile silo disguised as a windmill? A helicopter in an unfortunate position? An odd and inefficient form of rotating radar antenna? A shuttle in launch position? (if one squints, they might think it's a broken windmill with the vanes having fallen off or something)
These are all just off the top of my head. Remember, if we're talking about someone who tends to, when they see a windmill, be unsure whether it's a windmill or an evil giant, there's probably a reasonable chance that they tend to get confused by other objects too, right? :)
A good giant?
Sure, but I wouldn't give a "good giant" really any more probability than an "evil giant". Both fall into the "completely negligible" hole. :)
Though, as we all know, if we do find one, the correct action to take is to climb up so that one can stand on its shoulders. :)
I thought we were listing anything at least as plausible as the evil giant hypothesis. I have no information as the morality distribution of giants in general so I use maximum entropy and assign 'evil giant' and 'good giant' equal probability.
Given complexity of value, 'evil giant' and 'good giant' should not be weighted equally; if we have no specific information about the morality distribution of giants, then as with any optimization process, 'good' is a much, much smaller target than 'evil' (if we're including apparently-human-hostile indifference).
Unless we believe them to be evolutionarily close to humans, or to have evolved under some selection pressures similar to those that produced morality, etc., in which we can do a bit better than a complexity prior for moral motivations.
(For more on this, check out my new blog, Overcoming Giants.)
Which can be fun to do with a windmill, also.
Since when do windmills have shoulders? :)
You are right! Even I, firmly settled in the fourth camp, was tricked by the false dichotomy of windmill and evil giant.
To be fair, there's also the possibility that someone disguised a windmill as an evil giant. ;)
Or, possibly, a great big fan! In fact with some (unlikely) designs it would be impossible to tell whether it was a fan or a windmill without knowledge of what is on the other end of the connected power lines.
Do you consider yourself "objective and wise"?
I'd consider myself puzzled. Unidientified object, is it a threat, a potential asset, some kind of Black Swan? Might need to do something even without positive identification. Will probably need to do something to get a better read on the thing.
And then there's the fact that we are giving much more consideration to the existence of evil giants than to the existence of good giants.
Nancy Lebovitz came across this too.
Well, I guess that's information about how many people click links and upvote the comments that contained them based on the quality of the linked content.
Not to argue that transcribing the text of the comic isn't valuable (I do actually appreciate it), but it's also information about how many people go back and vote on comments from posts imported from OB.
And about how much more readers quotes threads seem to get compared with everything else.
That is truly incredible, I regret only that I have but one upvote to give.
Best quote I've seen in a long time!
-- Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
~ Story, used most famously in David Foster Wallace's Commencement Address at Kenyon College
— Grossman's Law
Is there a law that states that all simple problems have complex, hard to understand answers? Moravec's paradox sort of covers it but it seems that principle should have its own label.
-Kris Straub, Chainsawsuit artist commentary
I will repost a quote that I posted many moons ago on OB, if you don't mind. I don't THINK this breaks the rules too badly, since that post didn't get its fair share of karma. Here's the first time: http://lesswrong.com/lw/uj/rationality_quotes_18/nrt
"He knew well that fate and chance never come to the aid of those who replace action with pleas and laments. He who walks conquers the road. Let his legs grow tired and weak on the way - he must crawl on his hands and knees, and then surely, he will see in the night a distant light of hot campfires, and upon approaching, will see a merchants' caravan; and this caravan will surely happen to be going the right way, and there will be a free camel, upon which the traveler will reach his destination. Meanwhile, he who sits on the road and wallows in despair - no matter how much he cries and complains - will evoke no compassion in the soulless rocks. He will die in the desert, his corpse will become meat for foul hyenas, his bones will be buried in hot sand. How many people died prematurely, and only because they didn't love life strongly enough! Hodja Nasreddin considered such a death humiliating for a human being.
"No" - said he to himself and, gritting his teeth, repeated wrathfully: "No! I won't die today! I don't want to die!""
Dupe.
— David Foster Wallace, The Pale King
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
(cf. Disguised Queries.)
A fable:
The original source of this fable seems to be lost to time. This version was written by Idries Shah.
The north went on forever. Tyrion Lannister knew the maps as well as anyone, but a fortnight on the wild track that passed for the kingsroad up here had brought home the lesson that the map was one thing and the land quite another.
--George R. R. Martin A Game of Thrones
– Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
Doesn't that spiral out to infinity?
It can just asymptotically approach the right value. It's probably more metaphorical, though.
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account the limit of infinite applications of Hofstadter's Law.
Even further:
Hofstadter's Law+: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account the limit of infinite applications of Hofstadter's Law+.
For all ordinal numbers n, define Hodstadter's n-law as "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's m-law for all m < n."
...which then forces things to take an infinite amount of time once you get to n=omega_1, so thankfully things stop there.
EDIT April 13: Oops, you can't actually "reach" omega_1 like this; I was not thinking properly. Omega_1 flat out does not embed in R. So... yeah.
For all natural numbers n, define L_n as the nth variation of Hofstadter's Law that has been or will be posted in this thread. Theorem: As n approaches infinity, L_n converges to "Everything ever takes an infinite amount of time."
I've got a truly marvelous proof of this theorem, but it would take forever to write it all out.
Hofstadter's Shiny Law: It always takes longer than you expect, especially when you get distracted discussing variants of Hofstadter's Shiny Law.
Actually it takes longer than that.
Yes. Hofstadter is like that.
—Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
A domain-specific interpretation of the same concept:
—Douglas McIlroy
A domain-neutral interpretation of the same concept:
—William of Ockham
This one really needs to have been applied to itself, "short is good" is way better.
(also this was one of EY's quotes in the original rationality quotes set, http://lesswrong.com/lw/mx/rationality_quotes_3/ )
Perfection is lack of excess.
Also, "short is good" would narrow this quotes focus considerably.
Maybe it's shorter in French?
Compare:
So, no.
Joseph Heller (Catch-22)
A bit more context for those who haven't read Catch-22 would probably help.
I don't think anything else could be added that deepens the understanding of the quote, besides the fact that moving the bomb line actually works because Corporal Kolodny (who is obviously a corporal named Kolodny) can't distinguish between cause and effect either.
-- Razib Khan
I think Donald Robert Perry said it more succinctly:
Proverbs 9:7-9
Provided your rebuke is sound.
Ouch. There is too much truth to this. Dangerous stuff.
I registered here just to upvote this. As someone who attends a University where this sort of thing is RAMPANT, thanks you for the post.
It would also be fair to say that being intellectual can often be a dampener of conversation. I say this to emphasize that the problem isn't statistics or probabilistic thinking - but rather forcing rigour in general, particularly when in the form of challenging what other people say.
I usually use the word "intellectual" to refer to someone who talks about ideas, not necessarily in an intelligent way.
If being statistical and probabilistic settles oft-discussed intellectual debates so thoroughly as dampen further discussion, that's a great thing!
The goal is to get correct answers and move on to the unanswered, unsettled questions that are preventing progress; the goal is to NOT allow a debate to go any longer than necessary, especially--as Nisan mentioned--if the debate is not sane/intelligent.
It is not really a quote, but a good quip from an otherwise lame recent internet discussion:
Matt: Ok, for all of the people responding above who admit to not having a soul, I think this means that it is morally ok for me to do anything I want to you, just as it is morally ok for me to turn off my computer at the end of the day. Some of us do have souls, though.
Igor: Matt - I agree that people who need a belief in souls to understand the difference between killing a person and turning off a computer should just continue to believe in souls.
Hah! Just found in today's NewsThump: We’d be total shits if it wasn’t for Jesus, admit Christians
This is, of course, pretty much the right answer to anyone who asserts that without God, they could just kill anyone they wanted.
From a forum signature:
Also Neil Gaiman.
Even my theist girlfriend laughed out loud at that one :-)
I'd suggest, however, that one who is wise had better be at least better than a fool at discerning truths, or the one who is wise isn't all that wise.
In other words, of a fool is better than a wise person at finding truths no one else can find, then there's a serious problem with our notions of foolishness and wisdom.
No idea if it's what Neil Gaiman meant, but the quote can be "rescued" by reading it like this:
That is, the fool is as good at discerning truths as the wise man, but not as good at knowing when it's advantageous to say them or not.
-- Richard Feynman
(I don't think he originally meant this in the context of overcoming cognitive bias, but it seems to apply well to that too.)
I think it was originally meant in the context of joy in the merely real.
-Steven Pinker
-- Alan Perlis
Since I discovered them through SICP, I always liked the 'Perlisims' -- many of his Epigrams in Programming are pretty good. There's a hint of Searle/Chinese Room in this particular quote, but he turns it around by implying that in the end, the symbols are numbers (or that's how I read it).
We are built to be effective animals, not happy ones.
-Robert Wright, The Moral Animal
– Bertrand Russell
Not a big fan of this. Seems like you could replace the word "think" with many different adjectives, and it would sound good or bad depending on whether I think the adjective agrees with what I consider my virtue. For instance, replace "think" with "exercise", and I would like if I'm a regular exerciser, but if I'm not I'd wonder why I would want to waste my life exercising.
The cognitive faculties are what makes humans distinct from other species, not any particular proclivity for exercise or any other such feats. A person refusing to think is like a fish refusing to swim.
Furthermore, we often benefit from these faculties even when pursuing interests that seem completely unrelated. Many of the best athletes are also decent thinkers. They have to be able to optimize their training regime, control their diets, cross the road, etc.
Wikiquote has this as:
Yeah, that must be the original; they even mention my version as a variant. I wonder how I found this quote originally.
This one's for you, Clippy:
—Marshall McLuhan
Vi Hart, How To Snakes
Vi Hart is so dang awesome.
"But these two snakes can't talk because this one speaks in parseltongue and that one speaks in Python"
Damn, why didn't I discover those before ...
"Man, it seems like everyone has a triangle these days..."
Holy crap she is, how have I never seen these videos until now?
On perseverance:
-- Robert Strauss
(Although the reference I found doesn't say which Robert Strauss it was)
I think it goes well with the article Make an Extraordinary Effort.
I kind of feel like a scenario is not a great starting point for talking about perseverance when it's likely to result in your immediately getting your arms ripped off.
There are times when it's important to persevere, and times when it's important to know what not to try in the first place.
And there are times when you don't get to choose whether or not you wrestle the gorilla.
Penn Jellete
Upvoted. Also, Jillette.
Douglas Adams
This quote defines my approach to science and philosophy; a phenomenon can be wondrous on its own merit, it need not be magical or extraordinary to have value.
Is this from a particular book, or something he said randomly?
It's from the first Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book.
Really? What's the context?
Zaphod thinks they're on a mythic quest to find the lost planet Magrathea. They've found a lost planet alright, orbiting twin stars, but Ford still doesn't believe.
Of course, in context, they are in fact orbiting the lost planet of Magrathea.
Well, in true fact, there is no lost planet of Magrathea.
Thanks.
I imagine it is from one of his books but I came across it in the introduction to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Oddly enough the Hitchhiker series is absolutely full of satirical quotes which can be applied to rationality.
-Nobilis RPG 3rd edition
...that was written by a Less Wrong reader. Or if not, someone who independently reinvented things to well past the point where I want to talk to them. Do you know the author?
This site is not the only center of rationality. =) http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/03/argument-from-comfort.html
Seriously, she seems pretty awesome. link to Johns Hopkins profile
Hasn't using DAGs to talk about causality long been a staple of the philosophy and computer science of causation? The logical positivist philosopher Hans Reichenbach used directed acyclic graphs to depict causal relationships between events in his book The Direction of Time (1956). (See, e.g., p. 37.)
A little searching online also turned up this 1977 article in Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. From p. 72:
That article came out around the time of Pearl's first papers, and it doesn't cite him. Had his ideas already reached that level of saturation?
ETA: I've looked a little more closely at the 1977 paper, which is entitled "Problems in the Design of Knowledge Bases for Medical Consultation". It appears to completely lack the idea of performing surgery on the DAGs, though I may have missed something. Here is a longer quote from the paper (p. 72):
So, when it comes to demystifying causation, there is still a long distance from merely using DAGs to using DAGs in the particularly insightful way that Pearl does.
Hi, you might want to consider this paper:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/class/soc952/Wright/Wright_The%20Method%20of%20Path%20Coefficients.pdf
This paper is remarkable not only because it correctly formalizes causation in linear models using DAGs, but also that it gives a method for connecting causal and observational quantities in a way that's still in use today. (The method itself was proposed in 1923, I believe). Edit: apparently in 1920-21, with earliest known reference apparently dating back to 1918.
Using DAGs for causality certainly predates Pearl. Identifying "randomization on X" with "dividing by P(x | pa(x))" might be implicit in fairly old papers also. Again, this idea predates Pearl.
There's always more to the story than one insightful book.
Good find, thanks. The handwritten equations are especially nice.
Ilya, it looks you're the perfect person to write an introductory LW post about causal graphs. We don't have any good intro to the topic showing why it is important and non-obvious (e.g. the smoking/tar/cancer example). I'm willing to read drafts, but given your credentials I think it's not necessary :-)
The point is that it's not commonly internalized to the point where someone will correctly use DAG as a synonym for "universe".
Synonym? Not just 'capable of being used to perfectly represent', but an actual literal synonym? That's a remarkable claim. I'm not saying I outright don't believe it but it is something I would want to see explained in detail first.
Would reading Pearl (competently) be sufficient to make someone use the term DAG correctly in that sense?
All that I see in the quote is that the DAG is taken to determine what happens to you in some unanalyzed sense. You often hear similar statements saying that the cold equations of physics determine your fate, but the speaker is not necessarily thinking of "equations of physics" as synonymous with "universe".
Or just someone else who read Pearl, no?
The author of most of the Nobilis work is Jenna K. Moran. I'm unsure if this remark is independent of LW or not. The Third Edition (where that quote is from) was published this year, so it is possible that LW influenced it.
Heh, I clicked the link to see when she took over Nobilis from Rebecca Borgstrom, only to find that she took over more than that from her.
Edit: Also, serious memetic hazard warning with regard to her fiction blog, which is linked from the article.
I'm not sure it's a memetic hazard, but this post is one of the most Hofstadterian things outside of Hofstadter
Until this moment, I had always assumed that Eliezer had read 100% of all fiction.
The memes are getting out there! (Hopefully.)
No, hopefully they were re-discovered. We can improve our publicity skills, but we can't make ideas easier to independantly re-invent.
Really? If meme Z is the result of meme X and Y colliding, then it seems like spreading X and Y makes it easier to independently re-invent Z.
Yes - by 'independently' I mean 'unaffected by any publicity work we might do'.
– M. Spivak: Calculus
“In life as in poker, the occasional coup does not necessarily demonstrate skill and superlative performance is not the ability to eliminate chance, but the capacity to deliver good outcomes over and over again. That is how we know Warren Buffett is a skilled investor and Johnny Chan a skilled poker player.” — John Kay, Financial Times
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”
~ Aristotle
-- genesplicer on Something Awful Forums, via
Meh. Tony ruined that guy's role-playing fun at a Ren Faire. People pretend to believe all kinds of silly stuff at a Ren Faire.
Last year my husband and I went to Ren Faire dressed as monks, pushing our daughter, dressed as a baby dragon, around in a stroller. (We got lots of comments about vows of celibacy.) We bought our daughter a little flower-shaped hair pin when we were there, after asking what would look best on a dragon. What Tony did would have been like the salesperson saying "That's not a dragon."
And then the guy walks away trying to prevent himself from bursting out with laughter at the fact that he just managed to get an incredibly good deal on a strong power crystal that Tony, who had clearly not been educated in such things, mistakenly believed was simple quartz.
Story kind of bothers me. Yeah, you can get someone to pretend not to believe something by offering a fiscal reward, but that doesn't prove anything.
If I were a geologist and correctly identified the crystal as the rare and valuable mineral unobtainite which I had been desperately seeking samples of, but Tony stubbornly insisted it was quartz - and if Tony then told me it was $150 if it was unobtainite but $15 if it was quartz - I'd call it quartz too if it meant I could get my sample for cheaper. So what?
I think the interesting part of the story is that it caused the power crystal dude to shut up about power crystals when he'd previously evinced interest in telling everyone about them. I don't think you could get the same effect for $135 from a lot of, say, missionaries.
I wonder if the default price was more like $10.
Note to self: do not buy stuff from Nancy Lebovitz.
Better yet, don't go gaga. And use anchoring to your advantage - before haggling, talk about something you got for free.
Wow, anchoring! That one didn't even occur to me!
Part of me wants to say that it was foolish of Tony to take so much less money than he could have gotten simply for getting the guy to profess that it was a piece of quartz rather than a power crystal, but I'm not sure I would feel comfortable exploiting a guy's delusions to that degree either.
I thank Tony for not taking the immediately self-benefiting path of profit and instead doing his small part to raise the sanity waterline.
I think he would have been better off taking the money and donating it to a good charity.
Was the buyer sane enough to realise that it probably wasn't a power crystal, or just sane enough to realise that if he pretended it wasn't a power crystal he'd save $135?
Is that amount of raising-the-sanity waterline worth $135 to Tony?
I would guess it's guilt-avoidance at work here.
(EDIT: your thanks to Tony are still valid though!)
And with that in mind, how would it have affected the sanity waterline if Tony had donated that $135 to an institution that's pursuing the improvement of human rationality?
Look, sometimes you've just got to do things because they're awesome.
But would you feel comfortable with that maxim encoded in an AI's utility function?
If its a terminal value then CEV should converge to it.
For a sufficiently rigorous definition of "awesome", why not?
There's no guarantee the guy would have bought it at all for $150. The impression I get is that this was ultimately a case of belief in belief, Tony knew he couldn't get much more than $15 and just wanted to win the argument.
I doubt he would have bought it for $150, but after making a big deal of its properties as a power crystal, he'd be limited in his leverage to haggle it down; he'd probably have taken it for three times the asking price if not ten.
-- Paul Graham
Okay, that quote has me upvoting and closing my LessWrong browser.
And this just reminded me to check the time and realise i was 40 minutes late for logging into work (cough) LessWrong as memetic hazard!
What exactly would Paul Graham call reading Paul Graham essays online when I should be working?
Perhaps the answer to that question lies in one or more of the following Paul Graham essays:
Disconnecting Distraction
Good and Bad Procrastination
P.S.: Bwahahahaha!
When it comes to learning on the internet (including, as wedrifid mentions, reading Graham's essays, but excluding e.g. porn and celebrity gossip), I'd say It's a lot less harmful and risky than being drunk, and probably helpful in a lot of ways. It's certainly not making huge strides toward accomplishing your life's goals, but it seems like a stretch to compare it to getting drunk.
I think PG's analogy referred to addictiveness, not harmfulness.
Is it bad if you're addicted to good things?
If it's getting in the way of other stuff you want/need to do, then yes. Otherwise probably no.
No, but in this case the addiction makes you worse off because surfing the net is worse than doing productive work.
Richard D. Janda and Brian D. Joseph, 2003, The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, p. 111.
– Mencken, quoted in Pinker: How the Mind Works
– Steven Kaas
I really don't see the point. All I'm getting out of this is: "knowing the truth is hard".
Plus the notion that in the current world when you know the truth with some satisfactory accuracy, most of the time you get to know it not firsthand but via a chain of people. Therefore it might be said that evaulating people's trustworthiness is in the same league of importance as interpreting and analysing data yet untouched by people.
Also, to nitpick, if you find a chain of people full of very trustworthy people, knowing the truth could be relatively easy.
I recently posted these in another thread, but I think they're worth putting here to stand on their own:
Terry Pratchett, "Nation"
William T. Powers (CSGNET mailing list, April 2005)
Does that mean one can answer "Do you believe in magic?" with "No, but I believe in the existence of opaque proprietary APIs"?
API's made by the superintelligent creators of this universe? Personally, no.
Worse: APIs grown by evolution. Evolution makes the worst BASIC spaghetti coder you ever heard of look like Don Knuth by comparison.
Actually, what I had in mind was Microsoft - though their products don't pass the "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" test. Opacity and incomprehensibility (the spell checker did what?) is within their grasp...
Francis Paget, preface to the 2nd ed. of "The Spirit of Discipline", 1906
http://www.archive.org/details/thespiritofdisc00pageuoft
The book also contains material on accidie (the Introductory Essay and the preface to the seventh edition), which is probably how I came across it.
"Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
-Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Personally I enjoy illusions - some of them look pretty. I'm keeping them.
Doesn't that mean "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" should be committed to the flames? I didn't notice much numerical or experimental reasoning in it.
The quote is somewhat experimental, but we'd have to ignore its advice to find out if it was correct.
I would say that advice from an experienced practitioner in a given field falls into a broad definition of "experimental reasoning", since at some stage they probably tried several approaches and found out the hard way which one worked.
I think "experimental reasoning" is not what we now call scientific experimentation. It's more of what Schrodinger did with his cat; think through the issue with hypotheses and try to logically understand them. It's better than most philosophy, but not quite what we would now call science.
-- Paul Feyerabend
This one could do with expansion and/or contextualisation. A quick Google only turns up several pages of just the bare quote (including on a National Institue of Health .gov page!) - what was the original source? Anyone?
Well, I deliberately left out the source because I didn't think it would play well in this Peoria of thought -- it's from his book of essays Farewell to Reason. Link to gbooks with some context.
We've had rationality quotes before from C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterson, and Jack Chick among others. I don't think people are going to complain because of generic context issues even if Feyerabend did say some pretty silly stuff.
Can you please explain what you mean by calling LW a "Peoria of thought" and why you believe it is one? It doesn't sound good, and if you've found a problem I'd like to know about it and address it.
Pretty much any forum tends to evolve into a bit of an echo chamber. I don't think there is any general solution to it other than for whole forums to be bubbling into and out of existence.
By Richard Dawkins, quoting a former editor of New Scientist (here's at least one source). I don't think this quote contains any deep wisdom as such, but it made me laugh. Actually you could replace the word science with any other noun and it would still make grammatical sense.
That is a consequence of the meaning of the term "grammatical sense", not a property of the particular sentence under discussion.
Good point. What I meant is that this quote could be used to defend anything. "Being irrational is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."