jimmy comments on Toxic Truth - Less Wrong

12 Post author: MichaelHoward 11 April 2009 11:25AM

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

Comments (25)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: jimmy 12 April 2009 03:56:27AM 2 points [-]

I assume that the implied question is "should we ban it?"

These points are all true, but they just mean "it is involved in bad things" and not "the costs of DHMO exceed its benefits".

If you make sure to think about things in terms of a cost benefit analysis instead of using the "it's scary -> ban it" heuristic, then you don't have to have an additional rule to "look for counterarguments anyway"- you're still looking for arguments.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 12 April 2009 09:26:35AM *  2 points [-]

The point was to communicate on a gut-level the first sentence of the post, but here it is in a different way:

When they're given treacherously or used recklessly, truth is as toxic as hydroxilic acid.

Comment author: jimmy 13 April 2009 01:35:34AM 0 points [-]

I got that.

My point was that if truth is toxic to you, then you have some underlying problems. Truth doesn't have to be toxic.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 13 April 2009 05:33:56PM 0 points [-]

My point was that if truth is toxic to you, then you have some underlying problems.

I strongly disagree. You don't have to have underlying problems to be misled (or, for that matter, harmed by others being misled) by malevolently or carelessly cherry-picked evidence.

Truth doesn't have to be toxic.

No-one said it did.

Comment author: jimmy 14 April 2009 04:53:46PM 0 points [-]

Well, the example given was just one side of the story (the costs) but not the benefits. If you're thinking right in this case you shouldn't be misled, you should just ask "Then why is it so freakin' common?"

In a less convenient example, if someone tells you about a few studies that support conclusion x (cherry picked out of the larger body of studies that support !x) then that could be harmful if you trust the guy to be an unbiased selector, but in general you should be suspicious of how the studies were selected.

Sure, it's a bit too strong to say you can never be harmed at all if you are at least half sane, but if you're that worried about being misled by truth, you probably have some underlying problems to deal with.

No-one said it did.

And I didn't say anyone said it did.