= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek 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)
FW and MR are defensible in non naive forms, and just about any naive theory is wrong. So why was pick on MR and FW?
ETA: Retracted this as it was based on a typo in the parent.
My understanding of Eliezer's positions on both of these in that they fall under the umbrella of non-naive forms of FW and MR. So they are in fact defended, and not only by Eliezer, but by many prominent intellectual figures. You need only look up the usual encyclopedic sources for a list of names. So as a matter of empirical fact, serious people take them seriously, whether to agree or disagree. That is, they are defensible.
Perhaps what you mean is not "indefensible" but merely "wrong"?
I meant defensible. Edited.