= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine 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)
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.