= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
khafra comments on Heading Toward: No-Nonsense Metaethics - 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 (57)
Hmmmm. What do other people think of this idea?
I suspect one reason Eliezer did not do this is that when you make a long list of claims without any justification for them, it sounds silly and people don't pay attention to the rest of the sequence. But if you had first stepped them through the entire argument, they would have found no place at which they can really disagree. That's a concern, anyway.
I vote for writing a summary, and including it with the last post of the sequence. That way, extra-skeptical people can wait until the sequence has been posted in its entirety before deciding to read it based on the summary, without losing much expected value.
There will without a doubt at least be a summary toward the end of the sequence.
I think in practice what would happen is the skeptical people would disagree on each post, and then when presented with the summary would be compelled to disagree with it in order to remain consistent.
You're right; that sounds like a likely failure unless skeptics could proactively choose to hide that sequence until they could read the summary; which the current LW codebase doesn't support.