= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on How to Draw Conclusions Like Sherlock Holmes - 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 (27)
Maybe, yes.
ACD was an agnostic when the large majority was theistic. He was wrong about "paranormal", yes! But who is always right? Was that Newton who's birthday has been widely celebrated some days ago? No, he wasn't. One can pick to Newton just as much as to Doyle, even much more.
But that is not the point. It counts what he discovered in physics and mathematics. His alchemy and the relation to the Holy Trinity is a side joke, unimportant.
Also Socrates spoke about "god" all the time. And so on and on.
Why to blame Conan Doyle now for his weaknesses? It just isn't fair. He gave us his confidence to the human reason through Holmes.
So far, all you've told me is a reason to somewhat ignore one of his negative traits. Can you give one reason why I should consider him more rational than Joe Bloggs.
Furthermore, Yudkowsky has made what seems to me a good point about why Holmes is a crap rationalist role model, do you have any rebuttal at all other than asserting that I should not care what Yudkowsky thinks.