No one did, but proof is much too high a requirement anyway. Although, I don't think I am alone in recognizing the theories put forward in the The Metaethics Sequence as the least defensible part of Less Wrong doctrine.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (150 children)

Comment author: Will_Sawin 13 June 2011 07:01:52PM 2 points [-]

I have read some mainstream philosophy. I have read much of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and nothing else by Nozick.

My view of LW is that the aspects of philosophy that I am interested in, that I have not already learned enough about from LW or other sources to satisfy me, are areas where LW pretty clearly beats mainstream philosophy.

No one proved consequentialism, and yet consequentialism is right. Who proved Occam's Razor?

Comment author: Peterdjones 13 June 2011 07:59:37PM 1 point [-]

I have read a lot of mainstream philosophy and I find LW is flawed in some areas, and I can say why.

Why should I believe what you say about consequentualism absent proof? What if I say that phyiscalism and reductionism are just plumb wrong. Would you believe me?

Comment author: Will_Sawin 13 June 2011 08:02:28PM 2 points [-]

No, because physicalism and reductionism aren't wrong.

I'm not telling you to believe me, I'm just pointing out that you should believe me, because I'm right.

Do you not believe in consequentialism? I could provide some arguments for it.

Comment author: Peterdjones 13 June 2011 08:51:44PM 1 point [-]

I'm not telling you to believe me, I'm just pointing out that you should believe me, because I'm right.

There;s no appreciable difference between "telling me to do X" and "pointing out I should do X".

Do you not believe in consequentialism? I could provide some arguments for it.

What I mainly believe in is the necessity or arguing for claims. But we seem to have made a little progress there.

Comment author: Alicorn 14 June 2011 12:12:58AM 1 point [-]

There;s no appreciable difference between "telling me to do X" and "pointing out I should do X".

There is some. The former adds an implicit authority claim, whereas the latter could be said in language that does not imply one.

Comment author: Will_Sawin comment score below threshold [+] (134 children)

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 14 June 2011 12:06:07AM * 0 points [-]

I have read some mainstream philosophy. I have read much of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and nothing else by Nozick.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is the least relevant of Nozick's books to LessWrongers. Try The Nature of Rationality (here is a decent summary of the content) and Invariances instead.

My view of LW is that the aspects of philosophy that I am interested in, that I have not already learned enough about from LW or other sources to satisfy me, are areas where LW pretty clearly beats mainstream philosophy.

I'm not really sure what your saying here, but if you get a higher marginal benefit from reading reading Less Wrong than reading philosophy books, then by all means continue reading Less Wrong. On the other hand, if you have completed the Sequences and read most of the other important discussions here, then you might want to check out what individuals in other intellectual communities have to say about these topics.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 14 June 2011 12:26:00AM 0 points [-]

It's only irrelevant because his assumption is held as false by lesswrongers. ASU is to deontology as Fun Theory is to consequentialism, or something along those lines. It would be very relevant if we agreed with deontology!

Why do we disagree? Are we wrong, or is he?

Is he wrong?

Why should I read the book of someone who is wrong on such an important matter when there are so many books I could read?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 14 June 2011 12:39:40AM * 0 points [-]

It's only irrelevant because his assumption is held as false by lesswrongers.

No it isn't. It is less relevant because it deals mostly with political theory (mind-killer territory and usually avoided on Less Wrong) while his other books cover epistemology, decision theory, and philosophy of science.

Why do we disagree? Are we wrong, or is he?

Firstly, ASU contains Nozick's least developed ethical thought. Secondly, like I said before,

...his ethical theory doesn't really fit neatly into the deontological/consequentialism dichotomy anyway. Arguably, his ethics/political theory amounts to consequentialism with "side-constraints" (that can even be violated in extreme circumstances). It doesn't seem to be any less consequentislist than, say, rule-utilitarianism.

I made this point earlier in the thread here. Is rule-utilitarianism not a kind of consequentialism?

Is he wrong?

I think so, but I also think the Less Wrong ethical doctrine is wrong. At this point non-cognitivism seems more probable than consequentialism (ask me next week and I might not, I am known to go back and forth on the issue).

Why should I read the book of someone who is wrong on such an important matter when there are so many books I could read?

I don't know your preferences, so perhaps you shouldn't. I was merely offering some friendly advice on a course of action that has benefited me. If you are like me in the relevant respects, then you will probably benefit too.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 14 June 2011 12:40:33AM * 0 points [-]

Is fun theory not relevant to lesswrongers?

What is the difference between fun theory and political theory?

ETA: Did you edit your comment? I didn't see some of the stuff at first.

...his ethical theory doesn't really fit neatly into the deontological/consequentialism dichotomy anyway. Arguably, his ethics/political theory amounts to consequentialism with "side-constraints" (that can even be violated in extreme circumstances). It doesn't seem to be any less consequentislist than, say, rule-utilitarianism.

but it's still not consequentialist, whereas, consequentialism is correct.

I think so, but I also think the Less Wrong ethical doctrine is wrong. At this point I think non-cognitivism is more probable than consequentialism (ask me next week and I might not, I go back and forth on the subject).

I still believe in consequentialism, as do most (presumably?) people on Less Wrong.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 14 June 2011 01:36:47AM 0 points [-]

consequentialism is correct.

What do you mean by this? I know it doesn't mean that humans should generally use consequentialist reasoning, for example.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 14 June 2011 01:40:50AM 0 points [-]

It means that the right way to come up with deontological rules for humans is by thinking of them in the framework discussed in that post.

continue this thread »

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 14 June 2011 04:24:29AM 0 points [-]

*raises hand*

I haven't read any mainstream philosophy to speak of (I may have run into some somewhere and not noticed it as such, since I don't actually have a firm grasp on what it is and isn't), and wouldn't be especially surprised to find things in it that are at least as good as LW if I went looking for them.

Will_Sawin comments on Rationality Quotes: June 2011 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (470)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (470)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login