roystgnr comments on How can we get more and better LW contrarians? - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Wei_Dai 18 April 2012 10:01PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (328)
Tags: community

Comments (328)

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 12:09:14AM 10 points [-]

Perhaps we have this backwards?

If there is something intrinsically valuable about controversy (and I'm not really sure that there is, but I'm willing to accept the premise for the sake of discussion), and we're not getting the optimal level of controversy on the topics we normally discuss (again, not sure I agree, but stipulated), then perhaps what we should be doing is not looking for "more and better contrarians" who will disagree with us on the stuff we have consensus on, but rather starting to discuss more difficult topics where there is less consensus.

One problem is, of course, that some of us are already worried that LW is too weird-sounding and not sufficiently palatable to the mainstream, for example, and would probably be made uncomfortable if we explore more controversial stuff... it would feel too much like going to school in a clown suit. And moving from areas of strength to areas of weakness is always a little scary, and some of us will resist the transition simply for that reason. And many more.

Still, if you can make a case for the value of controversy, you might find enough of us convinced by that case to make that transition.

Comment author: roystgnr 19 April 2012 01:57:31AM 11 points [-]

Here's a case for the value of controversy.

  • LessWrong orthodoxy includes a large number of propositions (over a hundred posts in just core sequences, at least one thesis per post)
  • The deductions that lead to each claim are largely independent (if post B was an obvious corollary of post A, it would have saved writer's and readers' time not to write it)
  • Reasoning is error-prone, especially when not formalized (this is a point made in the sequences; if it's wrong then q.e.d.)
  • Even if each deduction is overwhelmingly likely (let's say 99%) to be correct, it would be likely (63% in this case) that at least one out of a hundred would be incorrect
  • Because these are deductive chains of reasoning (they're "the sequences", not just "the set"), one false deduction can invalidate any number of conclusions which follow from it. The Principle of Explosion has been defeating brilliant people for millennia.

In other words, even if you believe that each item of LessWrong consensus is almost certain to be correct, you should still be doubtful that every item of LessWrong consensus is likely to be correct. And if there are significant errors, then how else will they be found and publicized other than via a controversial discussion?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 02:18:29PM 6 points [-]

I agree that there are errors in the "LW consensus."
I agree that a cost-effective mechanism for identifying those errors would be a valuable thing.

By your estimation, how many controversial discussions have occurred on LW in the last year?
How many of them have contributed to identifying any of those errors?

Comment author: roystgnr 19 April 2012 10:18:53PM 0 points [-]

Those are both good questions (as is the implicit point about cost-effectiveness or lack thereof); I'm afraid I'm not a heavy enough reader here to quickly give accurate answers.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 10:33:16PM 0 points [-]

I'm not looking to you for accurate answers, I'm trying to understand the model you're operating on.
If you tell me you think there have been a few controversial (in the sense you describe above) discussions and you think they've contributed to identifying errors, then it makes sense to me that you think having more such discussions is valuable. I may disagree, but it's clear to me what we're disagreeing about.
If you tell me you don't think we've had any such discussions, I can sort of understanding you believing that they would be valuable if we had them, but I would also conclude I don't quite know what sorts of discussions you're talking about.
If you tell me you think we've had a few such discussions but they haven't contributed anything, then I would be very confused and want to revisit my understanding of why you believe what you believe.
Etc.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit