= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on Cryonics on Castle [Spoilers] - 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 (23)
Well it seems like an insult to wedrifid to offer an explanation for his actions that you think is wrong.
I don't know if his attitude is wrong or not. I really haven't given the question enough thought to answer it either way. Moreover, it shouldn't be an insult to explain how a given ethical attitude can develop whether or not one thinks the view is correct. I'm not sure why you think that would be an insult. Is it because there's a common approach of dismissing the views of those they disagree with by giving psychological explanations for why someone would want to think that? Or is there something more subtle that I'm missing here?
Well perhaps not an insult. But it seems like what you are saying is "This is why I think he might think that but I think he's wrong." If you already think he believes something for a reason you believe is wrong, you don't have a very high opinion of his rationality.
If your goal is to improve, it's more important to notice and correct errors than deceive people about their absence. I believe it's insulting, not respectful, to attribute to a rationalist the attitude that they would prefer the knowledge of a flaw withheld.
(You might want to take a precaution of asking first if Crocker's rules apply, and communicate the bug report privately.)
I'm very confused. I wasn't talking about a bug report. Unless you mean bug in rationality.
Furthermore, I never attributed that attitude to JoshuaZ. JoshuaZ had no evidence that the flaw he proposed is wedrifid's thinking. He's just selecting one potential reason out of the whole set of potential reasons.
Ah, I see. So to say "I'm not defending claim X" sounds more like "I disagree with X" than "I feel confused about X". I don't know how universal that is.
Really? You seem to be radically overestimating human rationality in general. We all likely believe things for reasons that are too weak to justify our levels of belief, or believe things due to cultural upbringing and other reasons which have zero actual evidentiary weight. Part of the task of becoming more rational is identifying those issues and dealing with them, especially the higher priority things that impact a lot of other beliefs. Everyone here, including myself, likely believes things for bad reasons. In that context, discussing where beliefs come from seems natural.
I think that wedrifid is one of the more careful, rational and thought provoking people here. That doesn't mean that he's a perfect rationalist.