gjm comments on The Sin of Underconfidence - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 April 2009 06:30AM

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

Comments (176)

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

Comment author: gjm 20 April 2009 09:30:26AM *  6 points [-]

I agree with ciphergoth's guess.

Eliezer: I agree with ciphergoth and Yvain. Debating, at least as the Theist Who (Apparently) Must Not Be Named is concerned, is a performance art more than it is a form of intellectual inquiry, and unless you've done a lot of it you run the severe risk of getting eaten by someone who has, especially if you decide to handicap yourself. If you engage in such a debate, the chances are that at least some people will watch or hear it, or merely learn of the result, and change their opinions as a result. (Probably few will change so far as to convert or deconvert: maybe none. Many will find that their views become more or less entrenched.)

What would you think of a musician who decided to give a public performance without so much as looking at the piece she was going to play? Would you not be inclined to say: "It's all very well to test yourself, but please do it in private"?

(For what it's worth, I think it's rather unlikely that TTWMNBN will agree to a Bloggingheads-style debate. He would want it to be public. And he might decide that Eliezer isn't high-enough-profile to be worth debating. Remember: for him, among other things, this is propaganda.)

[EDITED a few minutes after posting to remove the explicit mention of the theist's name]

Comment author: ciphergoth 20 April 2009 10:49:26AM 1 point [-]

For what it's worth, I think it's rather unlikely that TTWMNBN will agree to a Bloggingheads-style debate. He would want it to be public. And he might decide that Eliezer isn't high-enough-profile to be worth debating. Remember: for him, among other things, this is propaganda.

Entirely agreed. There's a chance such a debate could be arranged if the book is a success, though.

Comment author: JulianMorrison 20 April 2009 09:33:53AM *  -1 points [-]

Rot13 is your friend. (Edit: fixed above)

Comment author: gjm 20 April 2009 09:38:54AM 1 point [-]

I already knew that, as you might have inferred from "I agree with ciphergoth's guess" and, er, the fact that I named him in my last paragraph. (That was an oversight which I am about to correct.) Perhaps I should have been more explicit about what guess I was agreeing with.

I don't know why the coyness, but perhaps TTWMNBN is suspected of googling for his own name every now and then. Or perhaps ciphergoth was just (semi-)respecting Eliezer's decision not to name him.

Comment author: ciphergoth 20 April 2009 10:49:50AM 0 points [-]

Semi-respecting.

Comment author: AllanCrossman 20 April 2009 02:19:38PM 8 points [-]

But you haven't really not named him. Anyone can decipher these posts with a small amount of effort. All that's happened is that this thread has become annoying to read.