PhilGoetz 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.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 20 April 2009 03:51:31PM 8 points [-]

And so I wrote at once to the Bloggingheads folks and asked if they could arrange a debate. This seemed like someone I wanted to test myself against. Also, it was said by them that Christopher Hitchens should have watched the theist's earlier debates and been prepared, so I decided not to do that, because I think I should be able to handle damn near anything on the fly, and I desire to learn whether this thought is correct; and I am willing to risk public humiliation to find out.

This really bothers me, because you weren't just risking your own public humiliation; you were risking our public humiliation. You were endangering an important cause for your personal benefit.

Comment author: Annoyance 20 April 2009 06:54:12PM 4 points [-]

The cause of rationalism does not rise and fall with Eliezer Yudkowsky.

If you fear the consequences of being his partisan, don't align yourself with his party. If you are willing to associate yourself and your reputation with him, accept the necessary consequences of having done so.

Comment author: Jack 20 April 2009 09:36:51PM 8 points [-]

Phil might be wrong to phrase his objection in terms of "our public humiliation". But its still the case that there are things at stake beyond Eliezer Yudkowsky's testing himself. And those are things we all care about.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 April 2009 04:26:50PM 2 points [-]

I've done a service or two to atheism, and will do more services in the future, and those may well depend on this test of calibration.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 20 April 2009 04:56:56PM 0 points [-]

I realize it is a tradeoff.