= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Psy-Kosh comments on Rationality: Common Interest of Many Causes - 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 (39)
Well, it's more a case of, for our purposes here "does everyone involved agree that actual rationality is a good thing? Then let's not argue out stuff like which of our causes is the bestest in the common area. Rather, let's hash out basic rationality concepts, or, more to the point, basic methods of training in rationality/creating rationalists. Let's reserve the 'my cause has most utility per effort/dollar/etc' type arguments for elsewhere."
Think of it more analogous to many online forums and so on explicitly banning religious and political arguments, since those tend to go kablewy and if the forum is primarily about something else...
ie, it's not "shut up about it" but "let's agree to shut up about it HERE"
Okay, I can see the sense in that. I just wouldn't want this sort of agreement to devolve into a kind of communally-imposed censorship of certain topics 'for the cause of Reason', in the same way that many evolutionists (theistic and atheistic) keep telling anti-theists to shut up 'for the cause of Evolution'.
In other words, I'm all for restraint if the goal is to focus on rationality, but I'm against it if the goal is to avoid offending people and preserve harmony.