= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on The ideas you're not ready to post - 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 (253)
A criticism of practices on LW that are attractive now but which will hinder "the way" to truth in the future; that lead to a religious idolatry of ideas (a common fate of many "in-groups") rather than objective detachment. For example,
(1) linking to ideas in original posts without summarizing the main ideas in your own words and how they apply to the specific context -- as this creates short-cuts in the brain of the reader, if not in the writer
(2) Use of analogies without formally defining the ideas behind them leads to content not only saying more than it intends to (or more than it strictly should) but also having meta-meanings that are attractive but dangerous because they're not explicit. [edit: "formally" was a poor choice of words, "clearly" is my intended meaning]
And any other examples people think of, now and as LW develops.
I plan to keep doing this; it saves time.
Isn't this inherent in using analogies? Are you really saying "Don't use analogies"?
I like analogies. I think they are useful in introducing or explaining an idea, but shouldn't be used as a substitute for the idea.