= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
anonym comments on The uniquely awful example of theism - 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 (169)
I'm glad to know that we are so much more advanced at being Bayesian rationalists than silly folks like Robert Aumann or, uh, the Reverend Thomas Bayes.
Yes, I'm being snide, but this sounds a bit too self-congratulating. Are we really in a position to be all but saying "these specific beliefs are a prerequisite for posting"?
There is a big difference between being a scholar of something like Bayesian probability or game theory and desiring to apply rationality in your life. Thus, there is no contradiction between believing that Aumann could run rings around anybody here when it comes to the relevant mathematics and that he might be far less rational in his everyday life than the average LW reader.
It's wrong in general to assume that somebody who researches a topic is influenced in their day-to-day activities by their research. They usually just find it an intellectually stimulating topic that they enjoy working in, and the only effect it has on their non-academic life is that they sometimes think about it outside of the university.
Expecting Aumann to be extremely rational is like expecting philosophers of ethics to be extremely ethical.