= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Two books by Celia Green - 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 (21)
I came across her web site a few years ago, but I didn't pay it much attention, because it failed my rule of thumb for deciding whether someone's thoughts are worth studying: what is she for? It's fairly clear what she's against, but (this is my rule of thumb) I am not interested in what someone is against until I have seen what they are for. (I must add that to the recent "maxims" thread.)
Having just glanced over The Human Evasion again, my view of it is unchanged.
Mitchell, can you briefly summarise her "description of an alternative outlook, and an examination of various topics from that new perspective"? She herself at the end of that book says she can't unless you go and visit her in Oxford.
Aside from what would be obvious to LessWrongers, who else would you recommend as having something worthwhile that they're for?
I don't have any particular list, this is just a touchstone for evaluating anyone's writing. It isn't even about agreeing with what they are for, but there must be something, or they are just an empty vessel.
Just to take the obvious example anyway, Eliezer's writings are overwhelmingly focussed on what he is for. Even when he makes a negative critique (e.g of conventional concepts of scientific method) it is always in the service of saying what he would put in its place (Bayesian practice).