= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on [SEQ RERUN] Class Project - 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 (30)
That is what I meant, too.
Some of those who read and believed the Class Project post 4 years ago.
And, given that it takers only "five whole minutes to think an original thought", how many thousands of original thoughts should he have come up with in 4 years? How many Einstein-style breakthroughs should he have made by now? How many has he?
Unless I misunderstand something, the Class Project post was a falsifiable model, and it has been falsified. Time to discard it?
I read the post when it appeared 4 years ago, and I don't remember anyone saying "Hey, let's set up a community for people who've read Overcoming Bias to research quantum gravity!"
I don't really care to get into the usual argument about how much progress EY has made on FAI. As I've noted above, my own interests (for now) lie elsewhere.
It was not intended as a prediction about his own research efforts over the next four years, as far as I know. Especially since his focus over that time has been on community-building rather than direct FAI research.
Yet it was, whether it was meant to or not. Surely he would be the first one to apply this marvelous approach?
This is a rationalization, and you know it. He stated several times that he neglected SI to concentrate on research.
However, leaving the FAI research alone, I am rooting for your success. I certainly agree that a collaboration of like-minded people has a much better chance of success than any of them on their own, Bayes or no Bayes.
Well, being both outside the academia and not a complete novice in some fields of physics, I would love to get engaged in something like that, while learning the Bayesian way along the way. Whether there are others here in a similar position, I am not sure.
It's a work of fiction, not a model.
How about this: it was a falsifiable model disguised as a work of fiction?
The falsifiable model of human behavior lurking beneath the fiction here was expounded in To Spread Science, Keep It Secret. Trying to refute that model using details in the work of fiction created to illustrate it isn't sound.
EDIT: For what it's worth, this is also the same failure mode anti-Randists fall into when they try to criticize Objectivism after reading Fountainhead and/or Atlas Shrugged. It's actually much cleaner to construct a criticism from her non-fiction materials, but then one would have to tolerate her non-fiction...
I don't see anything there about the Bayesian way being much more productive than "Eld science".
komponisto appears to be treating it in this discussion as a model, and I would assume that's the context shminux is speaking in.