Dorikka comments on The 5-Second Level - Less Wrong

111 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 May 2011 04:51AM

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

Comments (310)

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

Comment author: roland 08 May 2011 07:02:34PM 0 points [-]

For what it is worth, believing the WTC was loaded with explosives really is insane.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you really think it through or is it just a knee-jerk reaction?

Comment author: WrongBot 11 May 2011 02:41:06AM 5 points [-]
  • The WTC being loaded with explosives is a much more complex explanation than the orthodox one - penalty.
  • The explosives theory involves a conspiracy - penalty.
  • The explosives theory can be and is used to score political points - penalty.
  • Explosive-theory advocates seem to prefer videos to text, which raises the time cost I have to pay to investigate it - penalty.
  • The explosives theory doesn't make any goddamn sense - huge penalty.
Comment author: Dorikka 11 May 2011 03:36:06AM 1 point [-]

Labeling these as 1-5 from top to bottom, 2 contributes to 1 (you may be double-penalizing if you're counting them distinctly), and 4 (time cost to investigate) doesn't seem like a valid reason to discount a hypothesis.

I don't know whether I disagree with your conclusion -- I haven't bothered to read arguments about the topic and probably will continue to not do so because the expected value of such data is of pretty low for me -- I just wanted to point out possible errors in your process.

Comment author: WrongBot 11 May 2011 05:14:30AM 1 point [-]

2 contributes to 1, yes, but conspiracy hypotheses are flawed for reasons other than their complexity.

I agree with you on 4: it isn't a reason to discount the hypothesis, but it is a reason to avoid seeking further information on the topic (high opportunity cost).

On reflection, I now regret engaging on this topic. My apologies for time wasted.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 05 September 2011 11:30:24AM 0 points [-]

On reflection, I now regret engaging on this topic. My apologies for time wasted.

Please don't. Your comment was an example that it is possible to reply politely and rationally even in a discussion on topic that you (presumably) consider irrational. That is a nice skill to have.