Vladimir_Nesov comments on Do we have it too easy? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (44)
I recall a Gom Jabbar spell cast on a hapless teacher in a similar circumstance.
Jokes aside, some of what EY preaches here IS WRONG, since there is absolutely no way he is right about everything. If someone tells you otherwise, they are treating EY as a cult leader, not a teacher. So, ask yourself: what if the idea you just thought over and internalized is wrong? Because, chances are, at least one of them is. If there is a topic in the sequences you consider yourself an expert in, start there. It might be his approach to free will, or to quantum mechanics, or to the fun theory, or to dark arts, or...
Until you have proven EY wrong at least once on this forum, you are not ready for rationality.
(Hope this is not too dark for you.)
(Note that whole math textbooks can be essentially correct. Minor errors can usually be corrected without affecting anything else.)
While this is true, most math [1] textbooks generally don't provide verbose treatments of controversial, unresolved, possibly untestable meta-problems [2], (where the validity of the conclusions crucially depend on previous controversial, unresolved, possibly untestable meta-problems.)
[1] String theory textbooks provide a possible anti-example.
[2] Metaphysics, metacognition, metaprogramming.
I can assure you that the maths in a string theory textbook will still be essentially correct.