= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
htjdkven comments on How not to move the goalposts - 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 (71)
This whole post treats arguments as soldiers. It's as though you're saying, "Don't focus all of your attention on just one enemy soldier. Otherwise, the other soldiers might get through! You must attack all enemy soldiers simultaneously."
And (seconding Vladimir Nesov's cringe):
At this point, the "rational arguer" ought immediately to think of the Litany of Tarski: If A and B are true, then I want to believe that A and B are true.
I see a lot of disadvantages in having the thought burning bright in my mind that women are not as mathematically able as men (slightly on average and solidly on the right end of the curve), but I don't see advantages. However, I am fairly convinced that that thing is true.
I agree that we don't need to have the thought "burning bright" in our minds. A thought needs to burn bright only if it is very important to keep it in mind while making decisions. But a sober and unflinching look at the evidence seems to indicate that the difference in innate ability (if there is any) is too small to take into account in practically all decisions.