Bugmaster comments on Extreme Rationality: It's Not That Great - Less Wrong

140 Post author: Yvain 09 April 2009 02:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (269)

Tags: winning

Comments (269)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: roland 18 January 2012 08:55:19PM 1 point [-]

Writers of the bible? Who wrote the bible? It is a collection of folklore that at first was transmitted orally and some day some people starting writing it all down. The people who wrote it down were not necessarily the originators or even first witnesses of the stories. As always different people will try to extract different teachings from the same stories. Maybe there was originally the parable of the cheek and later someone added "do not resist an evil person" trying to make a general teaching out of it and disregarding or not knowing the original context.

To really find out you would have to go back to the origin of the whole and understand what cultural context was present there at that time. That there is a lot of confusion nowadays is an indicator that a lot of the context got lost.

Did you ever find anyone who forced you to go a mile with you? Isn't that weird that such a thing is in the bible? It is until you understand that there was a roman occupation and that soldiers had the right to demand you carry their pack for a mile(but not more, a soldier could be punished if he forced you for more than that hence the second mile thing).

Comment author: Bugmaster 20 January 2012 12:19:29AM 1 point [-]

Writers of the bible? Who wrote the bible? It is a collection of folklore that at first was transmitted orally and some day some people starting writing it all down.

Sure, that's true, but:

To really find out you would have to go back to the origin of the whole and understand what cultural context was present there at that time.

I agree with you there. I kind of assumed that you have already accomplished this task, though, since you are pretty confident about your interpretation of the "other cheek" concept. All I was asking for is some evidence that your interpretation is the more correct one. I agree that it sounds neat, but that's not enough; you also need to show that this was the passage's original, intended meaning. Same thing goes for miles and undergarments.

Comment author: roland 21 January 2012 05:40:53PM 0 points [-]

I agree that it sounds neat, but that's not enough; you also need to show that this was the passage's original, intended meaning.

How would you accomplish this?

Comment author: Bugmaster 22 January 2012 12:08:45AM 4 points [-]

I'm not a historian, so I don't really know. But, naively, I'd try to find some historical evidence that the "slapping customs" you describe actually existed and were widely followed, and that someone actually took Jesus's advice and implemented it successfully. I would do so by looking through sources other than the Bible, such as works of fiction, historical documents, paintings and sculptures, etc. I could also try to tracing some oral folklore backwards through time, to see if it converges with the other sources.

Comment author: roland 21 January 2012 05:39:41PM 0 points [-]

though, since you are pretty confident about your interpretation of the "other cheek" concept.

It is the explanation that makes the most sense to me, but that doesn't mean it is the correct one. The mile thing only makes sense in a context where people actually force you to go a mile with them, thus the roman law explanation sounds plausible. Again, doesn't mean this is the correct one.

Comment author: Bugmaster 22 January 2012 12:10:39AM 3 points [-]

It is the explanation that makes the most sense to me, but that doesn't mean it is the correct one.

Ok, in this case, your explanation is nothing more than a "just so" story. I could make up my own story and it would be just as valid (which is to say, still pretty arbitrary). And yet, you stated your own explanation as though it were fact. That's confusing, at best.

Comment author: roland comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 23 January 2012 07:03:34PM 6 points [-]

Everything I write is of course my own opinion, the same goes for whatever you read on any history book and even physics.

Warning: Fallacy of gray detected.

The difference is in ability to infer facts about the world from assertions about facts about the world. Assertions differ greatly in their convincing power. An argument is made strong by either being explanatory, drawing your attention to a way of making your own conclusions, or by having its own truth and relevance as a powerful explanation for having been made, while for a weak argument other reasons are not ruled out.

Comment author: Caspian 24 January 2012 04:42:51AM 2 points [-]

Of course you shouldn't claim "the following is only my opinion" for all your posts, or for an explanation you read on the Internet that you think was the result of some scholarly study. If you did you would need to precede it with a meta-disclaimer: "the following disclaimer is a routine disclaimer I put on my post without regard to whether it is accurate".

I have seen some people who put routine disclaimers on their posts without regard to whether it was needed, and it was annoying (definitely to me, but also, I believe without proof, to a lot of others).

Something like "I read this explanation somewhere, which makes much more sense than the usual one" seems appropriate.

Comment author: Bugmaster 23 January 2012 10:18:20PM 2 points [-]

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts; and you stated your cheek-slapping hypothesis as though it was a fact. The difference is important; it's the difference between saying, "It would be neat if pigs could fly", and saying, "pigs can fly".

Comment author: roland 23 January 2012 11:41:08PM 0 points [-]

I don't want to preced every posting of mine with a disclaimer, please:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html

Comment author: JoshuaZ 03 February 2012 05:04:15AM 0 points [-]

Some posts are more factually based than others. Some facts are uncontroversial and others are not. Vladimir Nesov noted the fallacy of gray in your other comment about how all one says is opinion. This seems to be a similar situation.

Comment author: Bugmaster 24 January 2012 12:26:11AM 0 points [-]

That's fine, but in this case, you should avoid saying things like "pigs can fly" when you mean something like "flying pigs would be neat". The second statement is entirely non-controversial, whereas the first statement is practically a challenge. If we were discussing animal husbandry, and I told you, "actually, since pigs fly, you should always cover your pig-pens with a wire mesh, because otherwise the flying pigs will all fly away", your response would probably consist of, "WTF, flying pigs ? prove it". And you'd be right to demand proof.

To be more specific, instead of saying,

"Turn the other cheek" can only be understood if you know the cultural context of the time which goes as follows...

You could have said something like

"I don't really know what the cultural context of the time really was, but I like to imagine it went as follows..."

This way, it's reasonably clear that we're talking about fantasy, not fact, and there won't be any confusion.

Comment author: Caspian 24 January 2012 05:25:49AM 1 point [-]

We don't know whether it's a fantasy/just so story or not. That depends on whether the originator of the explanation made it up, or based it on plenty of evidence, or something in between. I'm glad someone questioned it though, so I know not to assume it's as certain as if someone on lesswrong stated something they have direct knowledge of.

Bugmaster comments on Extreme Rationality: It's Not That Great - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (269)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (269)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login