Seems to have just happened recently. Though similar things have happened before, I'm sure.

To try to see why you were at 0 points, I looked through the first two pages of your comments. Sorry if this advice is unsolicited, but I think there are some things you could fix.

Downvoted thing one: "Aristotle invented the idea of induction. It is a major false idea in philosophy, one that Less Wrong subscribes to. If you disagree, please show me a criticism of induction in the sequences."

Reasons for getting downvoted: Not being charitable (i.e. doing your homework even when the other person seems wrong) leading to a fairly false equivalence between different things called "induction." Demand that someone else show you a specific piece of evidence that you could find as easily as they.

2: "Good criticisms here, yet downvoted to -3. Do LWer's really want to be less wrong?"

Reasons for getting downvoted: Fairly obvious, this didn't work, try to do something more effective next time.

3: This long comment.

Things you could do better in this comment: Stick close to a few key points rather than trying to argue against everything - if you'd just posted the response to the first quote you would have communicated much better despite saying less. In fact arguing against everything is generally a bad sign, since (charity here) you should start out working from the assumption that the other person is partially right. You come across as too attached to one "big idea" and not sensitive enough to context because you bring Popper into your replies to points (e.g. his second one) that had nothing to do with Popper. If you're feeling confrontational, try to not let it show through in the post - win by being better than the other person at this sort of argumentation, and don't start any of your replies with "Lol."

• You might also focus on making witty, insightful, or helpful posts, but it's harder for me to say how to make things go right.

There a variety of issues going on here. Manfred pointed out many of them. There's another issue here that is you've had an influx of users all of whom are arguing for essentially the same set of positions and not doing it very well with a bit of rudeness thrown in. One of the three is being particularly egregious, and I suspect that there may be some spill-over in attitude from that user's behavior towards how people are voting about you. I will note that in the threads responding to the various Popperian criticisms, various LW regulars are willing to say when another LWian has said something they think is wrong. It might help to distinguish yourselves if you were willing to point out when you think the others are wrong. For example, you haven't posted at all in this thread. Do you agree with everything he has said there? If you disagree will you say so or do you feel a need to stay silent to protect a fellow member of your tribal group?

For what it is worth, I'm not a Bayesian. I think that Bayesianism has deep problems especially surrounding 1) the difficulty of where priors come from 2) the difficulty of meaningfully making Bayesian estimates about abstract systems. I've voiced those concerns before here, and many of those comments have been voted up. Indeed, I recently started a subthread discussing a problem with the Solomonoff prior approach which has been voted up.

Oscar made a list of things that were allegedly in the tradition of Feynman and Popper. He was wrong about those. Furthermore, Feynman and Popper are in a different tradition to Aristotle, which is conventionally called "traditional rationality". Oscar says that Bayesianism is not "traditional rationality", meaning it is not Popperism, but it is firmly in the mainstream tradition of Aristotle: it is conventional traditional rationality.

Hmm...I had something else written here, but had a thought causing me to be less certain of what I wrote. I do think Popper should be criticized by someone on this site, to point out what is wrong with his epistemology.

Well, for one thing, I know that you haven't built an AI or come anywhere near close and I know that because your philosophy is empiricist, instrumentalist, and inductivist, all mistakes that prevent your project getting off the ground. Deutsch, on the other hand, invented universal quantum computation, founded Taking Children Seriously (which anyone interested in AI really ought to know about), wrote a best seller, pioneered universal constructor theory, advanced Popperian philosophy, and has a new book just out. So, unless someone here has done something significant outside AI that I don't know about, I rest my claim.