= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ABrooks comments on The problem with too many rational memes - 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 (339)
A possibility that ought to be aired (though I don't in any way endorse it's truth):
Less Wrong is just a community that is on the whole, and despite it's best efforts and intentions, toxic to rationality. The reasons for this are perhaps the belief that members of this community possess a special kind of ethically-significant knowledge or skill, a special ethically-significant mission, and that members of this community routinely express contempt for the beliefs of outsiders.
Now, again, I don't think this is true, and if I did I would be unjustified in thinking so, newcomer that I am. In my conversations here with particular people, I've found members of this community to be very reasonable and resistant to clubishness.
If you don't think the possibility is true, it is probably not worth raising to attention. Beware privileging the hypothesis.
I don't think I'm committing this fallacy, because I think there is significant evidence supporting this hypothesis (including the article about which we are commenting). Is this controversial? Acknowledging evidence does not imply consent with the hypothesis. As I said I don't think the hypothesis is true, but it would be a much greater fallacy to make that our standard for forwarding a hypothesis.
Normally, a true hypothesis which is supported by evidence will generate someone who thinks it is true. Such a person can and should advance the hypothesis. No such person existing is massive evidence against the truth of the proposition.
Advancing a hypothesis you think is false for the sake of the discussion is equivalent to one of the popular definitions of trolling.
Only if the hypothesis has been well promulgated and understood, along with its supporting evidence. I expect many hypotheses (including many we consider to be true) are raised in the spirit in which this one was raised: a plausible suggestion supported by evidence that is nevertheless not immediately convincing.
Would it's meeting that definition speak for or against the hypothesis? And I didn't say I thought the hypothesis was false. I just don't think it's true. That's an extremely important distinction, I think.
I invoke the Law of the Excluded Middle! ;)
Don't do that. 'I believe that P is true' and 'I believe that P is false' aren't contradictories.
I expect that true hypotheses are generally raised first by those who believe them, and that the extent to which there are exceptions does not make a significant impact in my claim:
...
No, its meeting that definition would speak against you committing the act of raising the hypothesis. Don't troll.
I don't think it's much of a distinction at all, and much less an important one. If you do think it's important, I'll happily submit to having my "you think is false" above translated into "you don't think is true", with the same intended meaning and truth value from my end.
Well, to clarify, I agree with everything but the 'massive' here. It is evidence against the truth of a proposition, but not great evidence. It seems obvious to me that it should never be taken as conclusive: I am certain you would agree that we shouldn't refuse to entertain any hypothesis that isn't thought true by other people. If not, then I take your point: it is evidence against the hypothesis. It belongs on the list alongside other evidence against it, and whatever evidence is for it.
Well, then your statement is "forwarding theses about which one is agnostic for the sake of discussion is trolling". This is obviously false, since many if not nearly all discussions on this site would be cases of trolling.
I admit, I'm not sure I understand how your comments address my original hypothesis. If you don't think it's worth entertaining, then don't entertain it. I just wanted it to be on the list. If you think the hypothesis is false, then argue against it. Don't argue against my raising it. That's not worth your time.
Yes, that is how evidence works.
I was assuming that much. It certainly isn't evidence for the proposition, and I'd have expected you to advance an argument in that direction if you thought that was the case. And it also is obviously evidence about the proposition, so it should shift the probability mass in one direction or the other.
I think it is harmful for it to be entertained, if it does not deserve to rise to the level of attention. In much the same way, I would prefer no one randomly picked John Q Snodgrass for consideration in a murder investigation; it would not be sufficient for me to personally not consider it.
I don't believe it is true that nearly all discussions on this site involve forwarding theses about which one is agnostic. For one thing, I'm pretty sure most Lwers are generally against agnosticism. Also, I do agree that initiating such discussions is trolling.
Much of my time on this site is dedicated to improving the quality of the content on this site. I believe that providing a good argument against your raising that hypothesis will reduce the incidence of relevantly similar hypotheses in the future, which will improve the quality of content on this site.
I think that is worth my time because a higher-quality Less Wrong will more likely raise the sanity waterline, which will more likely result in a positive future.
Well, now you've worried me. Could you explain why? I'll certainly retract my comment if this is true.
I...really? That's shocking. Are you really telling me that people on LW believe it's wrong to suspend judgement on a proposition? I really don't think that can be true.
It is dangerous in the same way as bringing John Q. Snodgrass to trial for murder. We might overweight evidence in favor of the hypothesis. Once something has been raised to the level of attention, it is hard for humans to demote it again.
Any proposition worth talking about, is worth judging. If the evidence and your priors yield a 60% probability that the sky is blue and a 39% probability that the sky is green, then that is exactly to what extent you should think those propositions are true. Note you do not find many religious agnostics here, as compared to atheists, often for the same reason.