Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Who owns LessWrong? - Less Wrong

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 September 2011 04:22PM

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

Comments (83)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 September 2011 09:09:24AM *  5 points [-]

For my part it strikes me that there is something rather different between the thing that Eliezer ridicules and the thing that species selection can be considered an instance of.

Correct. Species don't breed - they are not part of a sexually reproducing population - so the theory and simulations ruling out group selection against a countervailing individual selection pressure (invaders take over the gene pool under all realistic conditions) doesn't rule out species-level selection. Modus ponens to modus tollens, observed examples of species selection don't argue for group selection being realistic and Phil Goetz's entire argument is a nonsequitur. This was obvious to me at a glance but experience has taught me I do not enjoy arguing with Phil Goetz.

Comment author: Crux 01 October 2011 12:08:06AM *  13 points [-]

Does this not count as an indirect argument or something?

I for one would be sort of annoyed if somebody announced that due to an alleged unamiable personality of mine they're declining to debate me, and then in the same public venue proceeded to state that my whole argument was an obvious non-sequitur.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 October 2011 11:41:49AM *  2 points [-]

I for one would be sort of annoyed

Does your annoyance suggest a way in which the decisions in question are wrong? If not, it might be wrong to endorse this emotional response (in this sense). If it does, then it's better to describe that explicitly, irrespective of emotion. Or maybe you are drawing attention to the emotion itself as a relevant consideration? It's not clear from your comment.