Rationality Quotes November 2012

6 [deleted] 06 November 2012 10:38PM

Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately.  (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments.  If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself
  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Comments (898)

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 12:57:17AM 40 points [-]

People say "think outside the box," as if the box wasn't a fucking great idea.

Sean Thomason

Comment author: Randy_M 02 November 2012 03:24:56PM 4 points [-]

I think people tell you that when you aren't as good at the inside the box things as your competitors and need to take a risk to set yourself apart. Thinking outside the box is a gamble, which may be the only shot for someone in a losing position. Of course, that's from a business perspective, where I've tended to hear it more. For a science/truth seeking perspective I'd say "Don't forget to look at the box from outside from time to time."

Comment author: FiftyTwo 02 November 2012 04:23:44PM 14 points [-]

"Critically consider the benefits and drawbacks of being in the box?"

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 04:42:24PM 9 points [-]

Everything is always better with fucking.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 12:57:41AM 11 points [-]

One swallow does not make a summer, but one swallow does prove the existence of swallows.

Anzai & Simon

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 11:38:01AM 18 points [-]

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train in Scotland. The astronomer looks out of the window, sees a black sheep standing in a field, and remarks, "How odd. Scottish sheep are black." "No, no, no!" says the physicist. "Only some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician rolls his eyes at his companions' muddled thinking and says, "In Scotland, there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which appears to be black from here."

(This version is from Wikipedia.)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 November 2012 01:14:18PM 21 points [-]

Previously approximated here.

I still habitually complete this joke with:

"Actually," says the stage magician, "we merely know that there exists something in Scotland which appears to be a sheep which is black on at least one side when viewed from this spot."

Though I'm now tempted to add:
"Hmph," snorts the cognitive psychologist. "Such presumption. An event occurred that we experienced as the perception of a black sheep, only one side of which was visible, standing on what we believed to be a field in Scotland."

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 03:11:48PM 13 points [-]

I've heard a version in which after the mathematician speaks, the shepherd yells “Snowy White [the name of the sheep]! Stop rolling in the mud!”

Comment author: Abd 02 November 2012 08:55:40PM 6 points [-]

Best version, in my snap judgment. The story, told this way, is about the different modes of thinking of astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, and shepherds. (and there are other variations about the approaches of stage magicians and cognitive psychologists, each of which has a characteristic interest. As a pure and careful thinker, the mathematician comes up with something similar to the practical approach of the stage magician, or the more-carefully-specified approach of the cognitive psychologist.)

But the shepherd is living in a different realm, very connected to reality, and comes up with something, from knowledge, not from thinking and careful analysis, that the sheep isn't black at all. The cognitive psychologist allowed for this, distinguishing the possibility of perceptual error, but still could not speak with authority about the sheep itself.

But this version doesn't mention the cognitive psychologist. The shepherd essentially confirms the conceptual space of the cognitive psychologist.

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 03:54:21PM *  6 points [-]

"Bah", says the thermodynamicist. "All I know is that your brain is in a configuration that makes you say you saw a black sheep a minute ago."

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 03:59:51PM 4 points [-]

Add in another scoffing thermodynamicist, and we can round out the joke with an infinite regress.

Comment author: Alejandro1 02 November 2012 04:21:15PM 12 points [-]

"Meh", says the trivialist. "Scottish sheep are black. Scottish sheep are white. Scottish sheep are black and white. Scottish sheep are purple octopuses. And I don't even need to look out the window."

Comment author: FiftyTwo 02 November 2012 04:26:05PM *  23 points [-]

While everyone else is arguing the pragmatist has googled "Scottish Sheep varieties"

Comment author: Alejandro1 02 November 2012 05:56:22PM 23 points [-]

And Robin Hanson sets up a prediction market in Scottish sheep colors.

Comment author: DaFranker 02 November 2012 06:08:18PM 5 points [-]

And Paul Graham is making money off of startups that try to profit from the recent boom in Scottish sheep color economies. Oh wait...

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 06:20:03PM 2 points [-]

Cloned white and black True ScotsSheep with lifetime color warranties are marketed, free shipping worldwide.

Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 02:10:00AM 2 points [-]

My view is that if your philosophy is not unsettled daily then you are blind to all the universe has to offer.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 02:14:36AM 22 points [-]

What percentage of your philosophy? If your philosophy is completely unsettled daily, you're probably insane.

Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 02:17:58AM 2 points [-]

That's certainly true. I think the point isn't that you should be constantly changing everything you believe, but that you should actively seek out new knowledge—especially knowledge that has a high probability of shifting the way you think (in a positive direction, of course).

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 02:25:41AM 2 points [-]

Sure. I'm saying I'd prefer a wording that points out the diminishing returns of philosophical unsettlement, and the unavoidability thereof.

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 November 2012 02:19:30AM *  1 point [-]

You're right, but the quote still makes sense. Humans are built so that they either live in ignorance or in perpetual wonder as they discover and rediscover that their intuitions don't accurately model reality. You might consider this as proof that humans are insane, and I'm inclined to agree, but the quote is still true and has a useful message.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 02:32:45AM 1 point [-]

An unspoken criterion for LW rationality quotes -- AFAICT -- is most truth in least space. This quote could have more truth in the same space. Even with just a "somewhat" before the "unsettled."

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 November 2012 03:25:33AM -2 points [-]

Shush, I'm obligated to defend Neil deGrasse Tyson. This is the internet.

The quote's lack of precision doesn't bother me because most powerful quotes lack precision. Also, adding somewhat means that the quote will be longer.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 03:27:27AM *  0 points [-]

Yes, but the additional accuracy afforded by the extra word more than excuses its intrusion.

The quote's lack of precision doesn't bother me because most powerful quotes lack precision.

What degree of imprecision would bother you?

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 November 2012 03:37:12AM 1 point [-]

What degree of imprecision would bother you?

I'm not sure. I would need to see a bunch of examples on a sliding scale of precision. This isn't feasible because I'm willing to accept less precision in exchange for more impact, which means that different quotes would receive distorted results.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 03:39:45AM 2 points [-]

I would need to see a bunch of examples on a sliding scale of precision.

I want this to exist in real life for all communication.

Comment author: Decius 02 November 2012 03:48:03AM 0 points [-]

With extra points for communication which is precisely more than one different thing?

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 04:02:32AM 0 points [-]

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

Comment author: Abd 02 November 2012 05:27:31AM 1 point [-]

I'm trying to figure out what "somewhat" adds. Seems to me it takes something away. It makes a powerful statement into a wimpy one. Sure, if you take "unsettled" to mean something like "check yourself into a psychiatric unit," and take "daily" literally, obviously there would be a problem.

But "unsettled" means just that. Unsettled. Not fixed. In question.

How much in question? What's the ideal level of "unsettled"? And, "Who is asking?" is the question I've been taught to ask. If I ask the question, I'm uncomfortable with "unsettled" and want to be assured that it will only be a little, so that I can continue with "my" philosophy without any significant transformation.

Pretty standard survival thinking.

The rest of the statement makes it clear. It implies a value to "all the universe has to offer." When? Every day.

What philosophy? Part of it? No, the whole thing. Look, I should be so lucky that the whole complex constructed mess disappears. Doesn't happen that way. If it did, the chance of a day with no established philosophy at all would be amazing. Where do I sign up?

(No, if this was an amnesia drug that simply wiped it, I'd refuse. Rather, "unsettled" is just right, up to the point where it isn't attached at all, it's just sitting there, floating, not controlling, visible, available and useful if needed, seen for what it is, a pile of memories and patterns.)

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 05:33:54AM *  4 points [-]

For a philosophy to be worth paying attention to, it has to constrain expectations. It has to make accurate observations about the universe works. Therefore a philosophy that is the least unsettled by a daily examination of experience is preferable.

EDIT: More succinctly...

Comment author: Randy_M 02 November 2012 03:29:47PM 2 points [-]

Indeed. One should have an open mind but a very judicious customs agent at the gate.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:13:27PM 1 point [-]

See here and here for why you should prefer the stronger version of the injunction, even if it seems paradoxical.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 02 November 2012 05:06:12PM 11 points [-]

Each morning I go through all my beliefs and randomly flip their truth values, guaranteeing maximal surprise

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 04:02:33AM 11 points [-]

I used to agree, but that part of my philosophy recently became unsettled.

Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 02:11:36AM *  24 points [-]

You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational and believing things that are true. If you want to set yourself apart from other people you have to do things that are arbitrary and believe things that are false.

Paul Graham

Comment author: [deleted] 02 November 2012 02:44:03AM 24 points [-]

There is only so much genuine originality in anyone. After that, being uncommon means indulging in pointless eccentricities or clever attempts to mock or shock.

Thomas Sowell

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 November 2012 12:29:25PM 26 points [-]

False.

I mean, grain of truth, yes, literally true, no. You can shock the hell out of people and distinguish yourselves quite well by doing rational things.

Comment author: AlanCrowe 02 November 2012 01:14:14PM 20 points [-]

Paul Krugman says something similar

(ii) Adopt the stance of rebel: There is nothing that plays worse in our culture than seeming to be the stodgy defender of old ideas, no matter how true those ideas may be. Luckily, at this point the orthodoxy of the academic economists is very much a minority position among intellectuals in general; one can seem to be a courageous maverick, boldly challenging the powers that be, by reciting the contents of a standard textbook. It has worked for me!

(Very close to the end of Ricardo's Difficult Idea] )

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 November 2012 01:43:53PM 6 points [-]

Well, it is similar insofar as "reciting the contents of a standard textbook" and "doing rational things" are similar.
Mileage varies.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 November 2012 10:40:07PM 6 points [-]

Krugman's talking about Ricardo's Law in particular, very basic, very old, not disputed so far as I know, and not known to the general populace.

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 04:02:02PM *  12 points [-]

You can shock many people by doing some rational things - those preselected for not being done by most people already, and also those that are explicitly counter to important irrational things that many people do. And these specific rational actions have an availability bias. Conversely, once something is "normal", it's not a highly available mental example of "especially rational".

But can you really shock many people by doing a randomly selected rational thing? By giving the right answer on a test? By choosing the deal that gains you the most money? By choosing a profession, a friend, a place to live, based on expectations of happiness? By choosing medical treatment based on scientific evidence? By doing something because it's fun?

It might shock people that the choice is in fact rational; they may disagree that the deal you chose will earn you the most money. But when people agree about predictions, why would they be shocked by most rational choices? I think a random (but doable) irrational act is much more shocking than a random rational one.

Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 08:16:55PM 1 point [-]

You are correct, but I just want to point out that the original quote talks about distinguishing yourself, not shocking people. And I think most of what you said still applies.

Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 08:22:11PM 4 points [-]

Sometimes, yes, but only along certain dimensions. If your group performs rituals, they can't be rational because then they will be the same as other groups'. For example, the Jewish practice of eating flat bread on Passover is arbitrary [1], but it only works because it is arbitrary.

[1] It's not entirely arbitrary if you believe the story of Passover, but that's a somewhat different point. Actually, it may be interesting to examine whether it's rational in that case—I can see arguments for both sides.

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 02:00:09PM 5 points [-]
Comment author: MTGandP 02 November 2012 08:18:19PM 2 points [-]

I think it's still worth leaving up, because the previous post left off the second half of the quote. The quote I posted is more comprehensive.

Comment author: chaosmosis 02 November 2012 02:11:38AM 1 point [-]

We do not belong to those who only get their thoughts from books, or at the prompting of books, it is our custom to think in the open air, walking, leaping, climbing, or dancing on lonesome mountains by preference, or close to the sea, where even the paths become thoughtful. Our first question concerning the value of a book, a man, or a piece of music is: Can it walk? or still better: Can it dance?

Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Comment author: taelor 02 November 2012 02:47:46AM *  12 points [-]

If we see in each generation the conflict of the future against the past, the fight of what might be called progressive versus reactionary, we shall find ourselves organizing the historical story upon what is really an unfolding principle of progress, and our eyes will be fixed upon certain people who appear as the special agencies of that progress. [...] But if we see in each generation a clash of wills out of which there emerges something that probably no man ever willed, our minds become concentrated upon the process that produced such an unpredictable issue, and we are more open for an intensive study of the motions and interactions that underlie historical change. [...] The process of the historical transition will then be recognized to be unlike what the whig historian seems to assume – much less like the procedure of a logical argument and perhaps much more like the method by which a man can be imagined to work his way out of a "complex". It is a process which moves by mediations and those mediations may be provided by anything in the world – by men’s sins or misapprehensions or by what we can only call fortunate conjunctures. Very strange bridges are used to make the passage from one state of things to another; we may lose sight of them in our surveys of general history, but their discovery is the glory of historical research. History is not the study of origins; rather it is the analysis of all the mediations by which the past was turned into our present.

-- Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 04:03:26AM *  3 points [-]

On the bottom line(http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/thebottomline/)/[politics as a mindkiller:

This is a practical country. We have ideals; we have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is, it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. [Stewart: Right.] So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have. It doesn't work that way.

Source: Bill Clinton, in an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (episode date: September 20, 2012). The quoted material appears at about the 6:50 mark.

Comment author: Manfred 02 November 2012 07:41:47AM 7 points [-]
Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 01:35:30PM 3 points [-]

So it is. I guess I didn't check thoroughly enough. Thanks.

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 04:03:56AM *  61 points [-]

On the error of failing to appreciate your opponents' three-dimensionality:

They had cliche answers but only to their self-created straw-men. To exaggerate only slightly, they had never talked to anyone who really believed, and had thought deeply about, views drastically different from their own. As a result, when they heard real arguments instead of caricatures, they had no answers, only amazement that such views could be expressed by someone who had the external characteristics of being a member of the intellectual community, and that such views could be defended with apparent cogency. Never have I been more impressed with the advice I once received: "You cannot be sure that you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do."

Source: Milton Friedman, "Schools at Chicago," from The Indispensable Milton Friedman

H/T David Henderson at EconLog

Note: The final sentence of the passage, as presented by Henderson, is missing closing quotation marks. I have added them.

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 04:04:23AM *  9 points [-]

Besides being fascinating in its own right, such exotic finds are a good test of astronomers’ theories about how planets form. In PH1’s case, its four stars are actually a pair of binaries. Conventional planetary-formation theory holds that worlds condense out of a disc of dust and rubble early in a star’s life. But in this case, “the second binary would sit right at the edge of the protoplanetary disc,” notes Dr Lintott. Computer models suggest that the gravitational influence of the second pair of stars ought to disrupt the disc and prevent the formation of planets. Reality, in this case, disagrees with the models—and that is how science advances.

Source: The Economist's "Babbage" blog, in a post on exoplanets

(Of course, science advances when reality agrees with models too.)

Edited to remove "emphasis added" from the quotation, which I had added originally but have since decided against.

Comment author: NexH 02 November 2012 08:17:31AM 10 points [-]

As we learn more and more about the solar system, the reality-check that our theories have to pass becomes more and more stringent. This is one reason why scientists have a habit of opening up old questions that everybody assumed were settled long ago, and deciding that they weren’t. It doesn’t mean the scientists are incompetent: it demonstrates their willingness to contemplate new evidence and re-examine old conclusion in its light. Science certainly does not claim to get things right, but it has a good record of ruling out ways to get things wrong.

-- The Science of Discworld, Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 04:07:08PM 4 points [-]

Science certainly does not claim to get things right

Yes, yes it does. Otherwise, what would be the point? There's an infinity of ways to get things wrong; you don't want to spend your life catalouging them.

Comment author: NexH 02 November 2012 05:29:42PM 2 points [-]

The word "right" (without the use of modifiers such as “exactly”) might sound too weak and easily satisfiable, but I think the idea is the following: Theories that may seem complete and robust today might be found to be incomplete or wrong in the future. You cannot claim certainty in them, although you can probably claim high confidence under certain conditions.

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 05:33:00PM 4 points [-]

You can't ever claim absolute certainty in anything. There's no 1.0 probability in predictions about the universe. But science can create claims of being "right" as strong and justified as any other known process. Saying "science doesn't claim to get things right" is false, unless you go on to say "nothing can (correctly) claim to get things right, it's epistemologically impossible".

Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 04:54:53AM 0 points [-]

What I'd like is for everybody to be far more skeptical of those who use math to intimidate.

Sean Davis discussing political polling.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 November 2012 12:05:45PM 4 points [-]

Specifically, as part of the recent conservative criticism of Nate Silver.

Comment author: Nominull 02 November 2012 03:35:17PM 19 points [-]

I'd like everyone to be far more skeptical of those who are instinctively skeptical of math.

Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 05:48:20PM -1 points [-]

Yes, and one of the best ways to do this is to reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 November 2012 06:17:01PM *  6 points [-]

Davis' statement was not a generalised admonition concerning reasoning, but a statement made with the bottom line written (he was justifying ignoring Nate Silver). It's not entirely accurate to characterise it in general terms.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:22:45PM 1 point [-]

I suggest we put this debate on hold, until say November, 6. ;)

Comment author: Nominull 03 November 2012 06:49:08AM 3 points [-]

It seems like calling into salience the notion of "those who use math to intimidate" would tend to increase the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: James_Miller 03 November 2012 08:26:32PM 1 point [-]

If we increase the social penalty on people who use math to intimidate we will decrease the number of people who use math to intimidate and so on net might reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.

Comment author: TimS 03 November 2012 08:37:44PM *  3 points [-]

Doesn't the wisdom of this depend on whether those using math to win status conflicts are right on the merits?

If being good at math is sufficiently likely to make one win status arguments because one is right, the incentive on people to become better at math is probably worth the cost from people using high math skills to win arguments despite being wrong on the merits.

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2012 07:09:41AM 9 points [-]

Changing the underlying reality seems like a rather roundabout and unreliable method of changing people's perceptions.

Comment author: James_Miller 04 November 2012 05:00:21PM 5 points [-]

In LessWrong terms, this is about the most horrible thing you can say about a society. It reads like an introductory quote to some hyper-Machiavellian book on advertising or political campaigning. Up-voted!

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 05:25:58AM *  32 points [-]

Therefore, the first and most important duty of philosophy is to test impressions, choosing between them and only deploying those that have passed the test. You know how, with money--an area where we believe our interest to be at stake--we have developed the art of assaying, and considerable ingenuity has gone into developing a way to test if coins are counterfeit, involving our senses of sight, smell, hearing, and touch. The assayer will let the denarius drop and listen intently to its ring; and he is not satisfied to listen just once: after repeated listenings he practically acquires a musician's subtle ear. It is a measure of the effort we are prepared to expend to guard against deception when accuracy is at a premium.

When it comes to our poor mind, however, we can't be bothered; we are satisfied accepting any and all impressions, because here the loss we suffer is not obvious. If you want to know just how little concerned you are about things good and bad, and how serious about things indifferent, compare your attitude to going blind with your attitude about being mentally in the dark. You will realize, I think, how inappropriate your values really are.

Epictetus, Discourses I.20.7-12 (pages 51-52 of this edition) (original Greek, with alternate translations at the link)

Edited to correct a typo.

Comment author: RobinZ 02 November 2012 06:17:01AM 10 points [-]

It is somewhat amazing to me that there are people who much less concerned about their ability to recognize false reasoning than their ability to recognize counterfeit currency. It seems pathetically obvious to me that sloppiness in the former, meta level would tend to be expensive at the latter, object level - for example, you end up with people placing their trust in tools like iodine pens to detect counterfeit notes when almost no evidence exists that such a measure is effective.

Comment author: ZoneSeek 08 November 2012 01:34:46PM 7 points [-]

Currency is binary, either genuine or counterfeit. Ideas are on a continuum, some less wrong than others. Generally, bad ideas are dangerous because there's some truth or utility to them; few people are seduced by palpable nonsense. Parsing mixed ideas is a big part of rationality, and it's harder than spotting fake money.

Comment author: DSimon 02 November 2012 05:55:00AM *  14 points [-]

Remember, kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.

-- Adam Savage

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 November 2012 12:29:52PM 11 points [-]

If this were true, the ancient Greeks would've had science.

Comment author: Snowyowl 02 November 2012 01:57:23PM 12 points [-]

They came impressively close considering they didn't have any giant shoulders to stand on.

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 04:11:29PM 0 points [-]

Well, all of classical and medieval Europe had writing, and yet science was created much later than writing. There were many other pieces to the puzzle: naturalism, for instance.

Comment author: Alejandro1 02 November 2012 06:19:38PM 9 points [-]

Naturalism came after science, not before it. Most if not all of the key figures of the Scientific Revolution were devout theists.

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 06:22:59PM 6 points [-]

Many scientists today are also theists. The actors of the Scientific Revolution successfully compartmentalized their theism. If they had really thought God was likely to modify the results of their experiments to differ from established physical law just to mess around, or that there weren't any regular physical laws, they wouldn't have bothered with science.

Comment author: Alejandro1 02 November 2012 06:50:03PM 5 points [-]

True, but I don't think "naturalism" is the right name for that. "Determinism" seems closer to it; though perhaps many of them believed that humans had souls that were exempt from the physical laws of nature--so, "physical determinism"?

I also don't think "successfully compartmentalized their theism" is a good description of what they did. Many of them would have insisted there the lawfulness of Nature was tied to the existence of a Lawgiver, and that theism and science fit together harmoniously in a unified worldview, not in separate mental boxes. From today's standpoint we can say that the implications of the scientific way of thinking that they launched lead, when fully developed, to an incompatibility or at least a strong tension with theism. But I'd say it is anachronistic to say read that back some hundreds of years and say that the early scientists were compartmentalizing.

Comment author: DanArmak 02 November 2012 07:36:34PM 0 points [-]

"Determinism" seems closer to it; though perhaps many of them believed that humans had souls that were exempt from the physical laws of nature--so, "physical determinism"?

Science is also possible in a non-deterministic universe, one in which the evolution of physical systems has a random component and the future is not fully predictable from a full knowledge of the present. All science needs are natural laws, repeated regularities; they don't have to be entirely deterministic. And in fact scientists did not have a strong reason to think the universe is deterministic until they had what looked like a complete set of the laws of physics, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

On the other hand, a god that does miracles is incompatible with natural law as we know it, because we presumably can't put an upper limit on the probability of a miracle occurring. An intelligent god can selectively cause miracles to disrupt particular experiments or to lead scientists to a false conclusion. Science pretty much assumes that won't happen.

Many of them would have insisted there the lawfulness of Nature was tied to the existence of a Lawgiver, and that theism and science fit together harmoniously in a unified worldview, not in separate mental boxes.

"Many" is ambiguous. What place and time are we talking about? I would expect that until, say, the 19th century, the majority of scientists everywhere were conventionally religious.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 November 2012 10:37:25AM 2 points [-]

And in fact scientists did not have a strong reason to think the universe is deterministic until they had what looked like a complete set of the laws of physics, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Twentieth? If you're talking about the first couple decades of it, yeah, but I'm pretty sure that, after quantum mechanics became widely accepted and before the relative state interpretation and similar were proposed, most scientists were not determinists, and many still aren't today (see the third column of this table).

Comment author: DanArmak 03 November 2012 03:35:58PM 0 points [-]

I don't know the math of quantum mechanics. My layman's understanding includes the belief that quanum state evolution is deterministic (described by the Shrodinger equation). I may well be wrong about this.

Either way, my point was that before Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, and the understanding that light was a form of EM, science didn't have anything like a complete description of physics. So it was hard to say whether physics was deterministic, even though the existing Newtonian law of gravity was. Once there was an attempt at a Law of Everything, even though it was refined over time, there was at least strong evidence for determinism.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 November 2012 10:31:20AM 1 point [-]

If this is to be believed, “Traditionalists” (i.e. Catholics) were originally already “compartimentalized” (to use your word, which I'm not sure is the best one -- see Alejandro1's reply) to begin with, and it's “Moderns” (i.e. Protestants) who decompartimentalized.

Comment author: DanArmak 03 November 2012 03:38:48PM 1 point [-]

That's a fair description. Even earlier Traditionalists were not yet compartmentalized, and so couldn't do Science. Compartmentalization helped them. Then "Moderns" decompartmentalized again, with the result that some of them moved towards either atheism or a completely lawful (non-interfering) concept of God, and could do science; while others moved towards fundamentalism, and ended up rejecting the lawfulness of nature and therefore science.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2012 09:59:49AM 0 points [-]

Er, yeah, “originally” was the wrong word -- look at what happened to Galileo.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 November 2012 10:23:42AM 1 point [-]

They didn't screw around, and/or they didn't write about that, because contradicting the Aristotelian/Christian worldview was Evil.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 November 2012 10:25:33AM 11 points [-]

Yep. If nothing of what Archimedes did counts as ‘science’, you're using an overly narrow definition IMO.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 02 November 2012 09:25:49PM 25 points [-]

My impression was that it was the screwing around that was lacking.

Comment author: DSimon 02 November 2012 10:12:24PM 6 points [-]

Yes, in MythBusters context, sitting around talking about stuff doesn't qualify as screwing around. It is, at best, the thing you do to prepare for screwing around.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 November 2012 09:34:29PM 1 point [-]

My understanding is that they had the screwing-around, despite some philosophers not doing it. They didn't have the concept that the results of screwing-around was more virtuous than the philosophy.

Comment author: Vaniver 03 November 2012 11:07:11PM *  7 points [-]

"Virtue" has a specific meaning in the ancient Greek world which doesn't seem like it's all that relevant here.

The way I would put it is that a clever Greek interested in the natural world became an engineer, and a clever Greek interested in the social world became an active citizen, which is a sort of combination of landlord, lawyer, and philosopher. Archimedes made his living by basically being the iron-punk hero of Syracuse; Plato and Aristotle made their living by teaching young rich folks how to be effective rich adults. A broad-minded citizen should be curious about the natural world, but curiosity is just a hobby, not a calling.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 November 2012 06:37:53PM *  21 points [-]

To say that the Greeks didn't have correct scientific theories is obviously true. To say that they had a methodology that departs from ours is somewhat true. To say that they were merely making stuff up without reference to any observation is to merely make stuff up without reference to any observation.

I could do someone significant bodily harm by hitting them with Aristotle's collected empirical works on the anatomies, reproductive systems, social habits, and forms of locomotion of animals. And I'm not a huge dude.

Comment author: TsviBT 04 November 2012 04:06:07AM 13 points [-]

“It was, of course, a grand and impressive thing to do, to mistrust the obvious, and to pin one’s faith in things which could not be seen!”

-Galen, a Roman doctor/philosopher, on Asclepiades's unwillingness to admit that the kidneys processed urine - despite Galen demonstrating the function of the kidneys to Asclepiades by, well, cutting open a live animal and pointing to the urine flowing from its kidneys to its bladder (search the page for "ligatures" to find Galen's experiment described), among other things.

Comment author: Vaniver 03 November 2012 11:03:42PM 4 points [-]

They... did? If you want to make a distinction between Greek natural philosophy and modern science, which understands more about theories, hypotheses, and causality, and is rich enough to support an entire class of professional investigators into the natural world, then sure, the Greeks only had natural philosophy, and Savage is being too broad with his definition of 'science.' I think I side with Savage's approach of normalizing science- I would rather describe science as "deliberate curiosity" than something more rigorous and restrictive.

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2012 07:11:52AM 12 points [-]

On confirmation bias

If a man objects to truths that are all too evident, it is no easy task finding arguments that will change his mind. This is proof neither of his own strength nor of his teacher's weakness. When someone caught in an argument hardens to stone, there is just no more reasoning with them.

Epictetus, Discourses I.5.1-2 (page 15 of this edition) (original Greek, with alternate translations at the link)

Comment author: NexH 02 November 2012 08:35:11AM 9 points [-]

Quote from Peter Watts' Blindsight.

About the prospects of a fight against a superintelligence:

Still, I could tell that Bates' presence was a comfort, to the Human members of the crew at least. If you have to go up unarmed against an angry T-rex with a four-digit IQ, it can't hurt to have a trained combat specialist at your side.

At the very least, she might be able to fashion a pointy stick from the branch of some convenient tree.

Comment author: Kawoomba 02 November 2012 09:52:21AM 2 points [-]

Great book, it's freely available here, in plain html.

Can you recommend similar novels?

It's risky, getting involved. Too many confounds. Every tool in the shed goes dull and rusty the moment you get entangled with the system you're observing. Still serviceable in a pinch, though.

Comment author: NexH 02 November 2012 05:08:13PM 5 points [-]

Can you recommend similar novels?

Unfortunately, I can’t: this kind of (strangely refreshing) cynicism is, in my limited experience, unique to Peter Watts, and the use of interesting “starfish aliens” seems to be quite rare.

There are, however, other short stories (not novels) of Peter Watts that have a somewhat similar mood , such as Ambassador, but you probably are already aware of them.

Comment author: ZoneSeek 08 November 2012 01:48:00PM 0 points [-]

Can you recommend similar novels?

How about R. Scott Bakker's Disciple of the Dog and Neuropath? YMMV on his Second Apocalypse books.

Comment author: katydee 03 November 2012 07:58:57AM *  0 points [-]

I thought this book was really good up until the ending, which was beyond predictable-- yet I had the impression it was meant to be quite the surprise.

Comment author: Nominull 02 November 2012 04:08:43PM 24 points [-]

A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him.

-John Maynard Keynes

Comment author: James_Miller 02 November 2012 05:43:50PM 60 points [-]

A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit

Alex Tabarrok

Comment author: cata 02 November 2012 06:56:18PM *  38 points [-]

In which Winnie-the-Pooh tests a hypothesis about the animal tracks that he is following through the woods:

“Wait a moment,” said Winnie-the-Pooh, holding up his paw.

He sat down and thought, in the most thoughtful way he could think. Then he fitted his paw into one of the Tracks…and then he scratched his nose twice, and stood up.

“Yes,” said Winnie-the Pooh.

“I see now,” said Winnie-the-Pooh.

“I have been Foolish and Deluded,” said he, “and I am a Bear of No Brain at All.”

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:32:07PM *  4 points [-]

The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.

William Blake

Comment author: gwern 02 November 2012 11:14:22PM 10 points [-]

Freeman? That's one of my favorite lines from Blake's "Proverbs of Hell"...

My friend the Angel climb'd up from his station into the mill; I remain'd alone, & then this appearance was no more, but I found myself sitting on a pleasant bank beside a river by moonlight hearing a harper who sung to the harp, & his theme was, The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & breeds reptiles of the mind.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 November 2012 10:33:01PM *  7 points [-]

He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.

William Blake

Comment author: RichardKennaway 07 November 2012 11:37:18AM *  2 points [-]

That's Blake again. Tim Freeman is the author of the quote before the Blake quotes on this page.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 November 2012 12:59:06AM -1 points [-]

Thanks, fixed.

Comment author: Alejandro1 03 November 2012 02:54:30AM 22 points [-]

In a man whose reasoning powers are good, fallacious arguments are evidence of bias.

--Bertrand Russell, "Philosophy's Ulterior Motives". (The context is Descartes' philosophy and the obviously fallacious proofs he offers of the existence of God and the external world.)

Comment author: Nominull 03 November 2012 06:50:23AM 2 points [-]

I think men whose reasoning powers are that good are few and far between. (Women too, I'm not trying to be some sort of sexist here.)

Comment author: katydee 07 November 2012 09:08:04AM 4 points [-]

I've encountered the phenomena described in this quote and used it as a signal in the game of Mafia. It's quite effective but I think has limited general application.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 07 November 2012 11:04:03PM 6 points [-]

fallacious arguments are evidence of bias

Or laziness, or lack of time, or honest error. Multiple causes can have the same effect, and hanlons razor comes into play/

Comment author: hairyfigment 03 November 2012 03:06:18AM 5 points [-]

Three years ago...I learned that people to whom I defer, and whose authority over my actions is hardly less than that of my own reason over my thoughts, had disapproved of a hypothesis in the field of physics that had been proposed somewhat earlier by another person. I do not want to say that I had accepted that hypothesis...This occurrence was enough to make me change my resolution to publish the treatise...

(Knowledge of "bodies" in the sense of matter) would not only be desirable in bringing about the invention of an infinity of devices to enable us to enjoy the fruits of agriculture and all the wealth of the earth without labor, but even more so in conserving health, the principal good and the basis of all other goods in this life. For the mind is so dependent upon the humors and the condition of the organs of the body that if it is possible to find some way to make men in general wiser and more clever than they have been so far, I believe that it is in medicine that it should be sought. It is true that medicine at present contains little of such great value; but without intending to belittle it, I am sure that everyone, even among those who follow the profession, will admit that everything we know is almost nothing compared with what remains to be discovered, and that we might rid ourselves of an infinity of maladies of body as well as of mind, and perhaps also of the enfeeblement of old age, if we had sufficient understanding of the causes and of all the remedies which nature has provided.

-Descartes, Discourse on method part 6.

Comment author: katydee 03 November 2012 06:14:04AM *  6 points [-]

The question I pose to you is simple. Who is to be the master, you or the bits of talented meat that secrete hormones for you? Your glands are the product of aeons of evolution, and they are not to be scorned, but neither are they to be obeyed blindly.

--Prime Function Aki Zeta-Five, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Comment author: Kawoomba 03 November 2012 06:35:40AM 2 points [-]

Removing all those glands and hormones (assuming they are pars pro toto for our evolved urges), what would be left? A frontal lobe staring at the wall?

Comment author: Nisan 03 November 2012 06:34:57AM 16 points [-]

And then she said, "Ha ha ha, I figured out how to remove the closing quotation mark! From now on, the whole future is my story!

-Aristosophy. I like to think this is about the Robot's Rebellion.

Comment author: khafra 05 November 2012 12:12:52PM 15 points [-]

"Reality Injection Attack" would make a great name for a mathcore band.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 07 November 2012 02:46:50PM 15 points [-]

"

Comment author: Unnamed 03 November 2012 09:03:43AM 10 points [-]

Chris Cillizza says that [...] the surge in the quantity of public polling available creates a confusing fog of numbers in which "partisans, who already live in a choose-your-own-political-reality world, can select the numbers that comply with their view of the race and pooh-pooh the data that suggest anything different."

That's true. But if you actually want to know what's happening in the race the increased poll volume makes it clearer not less clear. The sense that the polls are "all over the map" is the mistake. You need to think of each datapoint as having an associated probability distribution and then look at where they overlap. [...] The fact that we now have tons of polling that averages out to [a] conclusion means the scope for "sampling error" to throw us off is, at this point, tiny. One poll showing a lead of the current magnitude would leave us with a ton of uncertainty, but a bunch of polls makes the picture pretty clear.

Comment author: arundelo 03 November 2012 02:50:38PM 0 points [-]

And knock it off the with "buts", as in, "Thank you for clarifying, but it's not good enough..." You can say that without the "but": "Thank you for clarifying. That's very helpful. Now that I have basis to discuss your plans, I want to let you know how much I hate that..." It's not a "but" statement -- it doesn't sit in contradiction of the "thank you" -- it's an "and" statement: "Thank you for fixing problem #1 and problems #2 through #46 still exist."

The only place that "but" of contradiction makes rhetorical sense is in the latent, imaginary argument in one's head as to whether one is justified in being angry with or hating LJ [LiveJournal]. "Your clarification is a righteous behavior but insufficient to compensate, in my assessment of how much you suck, for all the other crap you've done." Or more concisely, "Yeah, but LJ still sucks for the following reason", as if the matter of debate isn't whether what LJ has done sucks, but whether LJ itself (or its staff) suck. The "but" betrays that you're really, in your heart, arguing the case of Why LJ Sucks, not What LJ Is Screwing Up This Time.

-- Siderea

(Hat-tip to Nancy Lebovitz.)

Comment author: Document 06 November 2012 10:13:37PM 2 points [-]

Train self to perceive the word "but" as an alarm bell. When tempted to use it in an argument, immediately abort sentence and reflect on whether to swap the clauses before and after it, or even save the latter for a more appropriate time. (I imagine a lot of people here already do that.)

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 07 November 2012 02:50:50PM 4 points [-]

Meh. 'But' is just 'and' with a case of incongruity. That's what it is, so I don't see a problem with using it for that... though of course dark arts applications would be problematic.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 November 2012 01:01:07AM 0 points [-]

It's even more dark artsy to not even mention contrary evidence.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 08 November 2012 01:54:10PM 0 points [-]

Unless you know they'll run across it and want to control their exposure to it.

Comment author: lukeprog 04 November 2012 01:25:48AM -2 points [-]

We run the risk of going extinct, and the irony is, we did it to ourselves. The ‘smarty pants’ brain that created advanced weapons, complex global economics [and more] is routinely bossed around by the brain that shoots from the hip, makes often terrible decisions, and reacts more to fear and greed than to reason....

No one in their right mind would deliberately create the means of their own extinction, but that’s what we seem to be doing. The only conclusion is that we’re not in our right minds...

K.C. Cole

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2012 07:13:03AM 5 points [-]

If you're consistently in your right mind you can safely create the means of your own extinction, with the knowledge that you are sufficiently sane not to use it to extinguish yourself. This can come in handy when the means of your own extinction has significant non-extinction related uses.

Comment author: JoachimSchipper 04 November 2012 08:20:00PM 1 point [-]

This is true in theory, but do you think it's an accurate description of our real world?

(Nuclear power is potentially great, but with a bit more patience and care, we could stretch our non-nuclear resources quite a bit further, which would have given us more time to build stable(r) political systems.)

Comment author: Nominull 04 November 2012 08:38:58PM 1 point [-]

No, I was responding to the "no one in their right mind" bit. It seems to me that when you are in your right mind is precisely the time to build artifacts that could destroy your civilization, and it doesn't seem to me that you could conclude from building such artifacts that you are not in your right mind.

Rather, I think there's other evidence that humanity can't be trusted with e.g. nuclear weaponry, and this suggests that we should not build it. lukeprog's quote seems to me to be of the form "Humanity can't be trusted with nuclear weapons, yet builds them anyway, so it must be crazy, so it can't be trusted with nuclear weapons."

Comment author: elspood 07 November 2012 01:20:05AM 3 points [-]

I think you set a false dichotomy here - we can generate relatively safe nuclear power (thorium reactors) without existential risk, and without creating the byproducts necessary to create nuclear weapons. This is not an argument against the root comment, however.

Comment author: JoachimSchipper 07 November 2012 07:03:49AM 2 points [-]

Sure, thorium reactors do not appear to immediately allow nuclear weapons - but the scientific and technological advances that lead to thorium reactors are definitely "dual-use".

I'm not entirely convinced of either the feasibility or the ethics of the "physicists should never have told politicians how to build a nuke" argument that's been made multiple times on LW (and in HPMOR), but the existence of thorium reactors doesn't really constitute a valid argument against it - an industry capable of building thorium reactors is very likely able to think up, and eventually build, nukes.

Comment author: roystgnr 07 November 2012 12:20:41AM 2 points [-]

Fallacy of Composition? "We" didn't create advanced weapons, for example, tiny fractions of "we" did. And if half of humanity nukes the other half to extinction, but not before the other half fires off the nukes that wipe out the first half, then is it really fair to say that "we" committed suicide? The outcome is the same but you can't begin to understand the problem by oversimplifying it.

Comment author: xv15 07 November 2012 12:26:09AM 13 points [-]

I dislike this quote because it obscures the true nature of the dilemma, namely the tension between individual and collective action. Being "not in one's right mind" is a red herring in this context. Each individual action can be perfectly sensible for the individual, while still leading to a socially terrible outcome.

The real problem is not that some genius invents nuclear weapons and then idiotically decides to incite global nuclear war, "shooting from the hip" to his own detriment. The real problem is that incentives can be aligned so that it is in everyone's interest every step along the way, to do their part in their own ultimate destruction.

Of course, if "right mind" was defined to mean "socially optimal mind," fine, we aren't in our right mind. But I don't think that's the default interpretation.

Comment author: gwern 04 November 2012 03:26:33AM 20 points [-]

"The boundary between these 2 classes [the Eloi & Morlocks] is more porous than I've made it sound. I'm always running into regular dudes - construction workers, auto mechanics, taxi drivers, galoots in general - who were largely aliterate until something made it necessary for them to become readers and start actually thinking about things. Perhaps they had to come to grips with alcoholism, perhaps they got sent to jail, or came down with a disease, or suffered a crisis in religious faith, or simply got bored. Such people can get up to speed on particular subjects quite rapidly. Sometimes their lack of a broad education makes them over-apt to go off on intellectual wild goose chases, but, hey, at least a wild goose chase gives you some exercise."

--Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning Was... the Commandline

The last project that I worked on with [Richard Feynman] was in simulated evolution. I had written a program that simulated the evolution of populations of sexually reproducing creatures over hundreds of thousands of generations. The results were surprising in that the fitness of the population made progress in sudden leaps rather than by the expected steady improvement. The fossil record shows some evidence that real biological evolution might also exhibit such "punctuated equilibrium," so Richard and I decided to look more closely at why it happened. He was feeling ill by that time, so I went out and spent the week with him in Pasadena, and we worked out a model of evolution of finite populations based on the Fokker Planck equations. When I got back to Boston I went to the library and discovered a book by Kimura on the subject, and much to my disappointment, all of our "discoveries" were covered in the first few pages. When I called back and told Richard what I had found, he was elated. "Hey, we got it right!" he said. "Not bad for amateurs."

From "Richard Feynman and The Connection Machine"

Comment author: RobinZ 04 November 2012 04:08:11AM 18 points [-]

I would like to upvote the Feynman quote. I am not interested in upvoting the Stephenson quote. I think it would be better if these quotes were in separate comments, as recommended in the post.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2012 06:29:31PM 2 points [-]

I would like to upvote the Stephenson quote, and not the Feynman quote.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 07 November 2012 12:20:40AM 30 points [-]

I would like to abstain from voting on them, but to do so in separate posts.

Comment author: Omegaile 07 November 2012 12:33:08AM 14 points [-]

I would like to upvote the Feynman quote. I am not interested in upvoting the Stephenson quote.

I would like to upvote the Stephenson quote, and not the Feynman quote.

You two talk between yourselves so that only one of you upvote the entire comment.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 November 2012 12:45:05AM *  2 points [-]

I would like to upvote the Feynman quote. I am not interested in upvoting the Stephenson quote.

I would like to upvote the Stephenson quote, and not the Feynman quote.

You two talk between yourselves so that only one of you upvote the entire comment.

Or, you both downvote the conglomerate and each write a comment expressing objection to the combination, approval of the desired quote and indifference to the other.

(I downvoted the conglomerate on the principle "I wish to see less quote-comments that people believe should be separate, especially when said quotes are verbose anyway". There is an implied "...and would upvote both comments if they were split to encourage trivial improvements in response to feedback".)

Comment author: [deleted] 07 November 2012 01:15:26AM 4 points [-]

This reminds of how two high school classmates of mine eluded the prohibition from voting for themselves as class representatives by voting for each other.

Comment author: Stabilizer 04 November 2012 07:09:05AM *  17 points [-]

"Look,” [Deutsch] went on, “I can’t stop you from writing an article about a weird English guy who thinks there are parallel universes. But I think that style of thinking is kind of a put-down to the reader. It’s almost like saying, If you’re not weird in these ways, you’ve got no hope as a creative thinker. That’s not true. The weirdness is only superficial."

New Yorker article on David Deutsch

(I saw this on Scott Aaronson's blog)

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2012 08:37:22AM *  41 points [-]

Diogenes was knee deep in a stream washing vegetables. Coming up to him, Plato said, "My good Diogenes, if you knew how to pay court to kings, you wouldn't have to wash vegetables."

"And," replied Diogenes, "If you knew how to wash vegetables, you wouldn't have to pay court to kings."

Teachings of Diogenes

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 06 November 2012 11:43:50PM 31 points [-]

Another from the same site — on free will:

"It's my fate to steal," pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes.

"Then it is also your fate to be beaten," said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.

Comment author: gwern 07 November 2012 02:26:04AM *  29 points [-]

The real irony of the story is a historical context I think most readers these days miss: that when the real Plato paid court to a 'king' - Dionysius II, tyrant of Syracuse - it went very poorly. Plato was arrested, and barely managed to arrange his freedom & return to Athens.

Twice.

And supposedly Plato was sold into slavery by the previous tyrant.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 November 2012 05:22:04AM 7 points [-]

This works until the king sends armed men to confiscate your vegetables.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 November 2012 09:03:33AM 0 points [-]

What king ever sent armed men to confiscate the vegetables of one poor dude?

Comment author: Tuna-Fish 07 November 2012 09:18:41AM 19 points [-]

Damn near every one of them through the systemical implementation of taxation?

Comment author: [deleted] 07 November 2012 09:23:13AM *  6 points [-]

You can't get blood from a stone. So sometimes it pays to be a stone.

EDIT: Anyway, this is missing the point. Diogenes is preaching self-sufficiency and a variant of keeping your identity small. Sycophancy isn't a reliable way to hold onto one's vegetables and one's dignity.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 November 2012 01:03:35AM 1 point [-]

You can't get blood from a stone. So sometimes it pays to be a stone.

But you can destroy the stone, and put something you can get blood from in its place.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 November 2012 01:32:59AM 0 points [-]

Depends on the size of the stone. You might not even notice it if it's small enough.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 08 November 2012 11:46:46PM 4 points [-]

You can dynamite stones as an example to other would be stones.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 November 2012 11:52:43PM 1 point [-]

They still won't give you any blood. They're stones. No blood up in 'em.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2012 08:39:46AM 7 points [-]

A heckler in the crowd shouted out, "My mind is not made like that, I can't be bothered with philosophy."

"Why do you bother to live," Diogenes retorted, "if you can't be bothered to live properly?"

Teachings of Diogenes

Comment author: Raemon 04 November 2012 07:21:06PM 18 points [-]

"Oh, sorry, I have this condition where I don't see or hear anything I disagree with."

"I had no idea that being human was a disease."

"A bad one! Everyone who contracts it eventually dies!"

Something Positive

Comment author: TeMPOraL 08 November 2012 01:07:12PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: NihilCredo 04 November 2012 07:37:34PM 13 points [-]

The great thing about reality is that eventually you hit it.

Source: Andrew Sullivan in an otherwise fairly bland political post

Comment author: shminux 06 November 2012 11:52:40PM 23 points [-]

More often than not it hits you first.

Comment author: lukeprog 05 November 2012 06:59:00AM 3 points [-]

There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken

Comment author: Epiphany 05 November 2012 07:14:09AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: matsn 08 November 2012 12:16:17PM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure what you mean to imply with your comment, but since someone had downvoted lukeprog's quote, I guess at least that person might have taken it to undermine Mencken's words. However, all Mencken is saying is that

p(easy,neat,plausible,wrong) > 0

which in no way contradicts

p(easy,neat,plausible,right) > 0.

Of course the essence of the quote is that a solution's being easy, neat and plausible doesn't imply it's right which often seems to be forgotten in public discourse.

Comment author: Wrongnesslessness 05 November 2012 09:53:16AM 21 points [-]

The inhabitants of Florence in 1494 or Athens in 404 BCE could be forgiven for concluding that optimism just isn't factually true. For they knew nothing of such things as the reach of explanations or the power of science or even laws of nature as we understand them, let alone the moral and technological progress that was to follow when the Enlightenment got under way. At the moment of defeat, it must have seemed at least plausible to the formerly optimistic Athenians that the Spartans might be right, and to the formerly optimistic Florentines that Savonarola might be. Like every other destruction of optimism, whether in a whole civilization or in a single individual, these must have been unspeakable catastrophes for those who had dared to expect progress. But we should feel more than sympathy for those people. We should take it personally. For if any of those earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now, and you and I would be immortal.

David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 06 November 2012 01:55:51AM *  3 points [-]

For if any of those earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now, and you and I would be immortal.

And yet they couldn't even defeat the Spartans or keep Savonarola from taking power.

Comment author: gwern 07 November 2012 02:54:08AM 3 points [-]

To be fair, with a general like Napoleon, how could the Spartans lose?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 November 2012 05:23:37AM -1 points [-]

Fixed typo.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 05 November 2012 11:56:48AM 24 points [-]

After all, the essential point in running a risk is that the returns justify it.

-Sennett Forell, Foundation and Empire

Comment author: lukeprog 05 November 2012 08:08:07PM 14 points [-]

I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything... but I don't see my way to your conclusion.

Thomas Huxley

Comment author: vallinder 06 November 2012 09:08:56AM 10 points [-]

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.

Paul Valéry

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 November 2012 02:59:40PM 38 points [-]

Let me differentiate between scientific method and the neurology of the individual scientist. Scientific method has always depended on feedback [or flip-flopping as the Tsarists call it]; I therefore consider it the highest form of group intelligence thus far evolved on this backward planet. The individual scientist seems a different animal entirely. The ones I've met seem as passionate, and hence as egotistic and prejudiced, as painters, ballerinas or even, God save the mark, novelists. My hope lies in the feedback system itself, not in any alleged saintliness of the individuals in the system.

Robert Anton Wilson

Comment author: BerryPick6 06 November 2012 03:08:10PM *  15 points [-]

Recognizing the startling resurgence in realism, Don Philahue (of The Don Philahue Show) invited a member of Realists Anonymous to bare his soul on television. After a brief introduction documenting the spread of realism, Philahue turned to his guest:

DP: What kinds of realism were you into, Hilary?

H: The whole bag, Don. I was a realist about logical terms, abstract entities, theoretical postulates - you name it.

DP: And causality, what about causality?

H: That too, Don. (Audience gasps.)

DP: I'm going to press you here, Hilary. Did you at any time accept moral realism?

H: (staring at feet): Yes.

DP: What effect did all this realism have on your life?

H: I would spend hours aimlessly wandering the streets, kicking large stones and shouting, "I refute you thus!" It's embarrassing to recall.

DP: There was worse, wasn't there Hilary?

H: I can't deny it, don. (Audience gasps.) Instead of going to work I would sit at home fondling ashtrays and reading voraciously about converging scientific theories. I kept a copy of "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" hidden in the icebox, and when no one was around I would take it our and chant "The Nazis were bad. The Nazis were really bad."

-- A dialogue by Philip Gasper

Comment author: Alejandro1 07 November 2012 12:41:57AM 2 points [-]

Hilarious. It reminded me of Dennett's "Superficiality vs. Hysterical Realism" (which is much more serious and academic, though).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 November 2012 04:26:24PM *  0 points [-]

There is no objective "world around us." There are only attempts to represent that world, whose attributes and flaws vary. I am a writer. I believe in being "on the ground." I believe in "seeing things." But part of "seeing things" is that if you actually are seeing as much as possible, you understand the limitations of your eyes.

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 07 November 2012 12:04:17AM 3 points [-]

Given that Coates is complaining about a pundit who disdains polls in favor of personal impressions (or worse, secondhand accounts thereof), it seems like a better conclusion would be "there is an objective world; and your feelings about how the world is, are not the world itself; you actually have to go and measure in a systematic fashion if you want to know what the world is like". I'm not sure why he concludes that the objective world is not real. Besides, if there's no objective world, then the notion of some attempts to represent that world being more or less flawed, seems incoherent...

P.S. You've got the hyphen in Coates' name placed wrong; it should be "Ta-Nehisi Coates".

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 07 November 2012 04:27:09AM 2 points [-]

I think he means that none of the stuff in a mind is going to be a perfect representation, but if that's what he meant, then there were probably better ways of saying it.

In any case, the location of the hyphen in his name is about as objective as you can get, and I've corrected it.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 07 November 2012 02:59:17PM 2 points [-]

Yes, to be fair, that seems like a reasonable charitable interpretation. Coates' writing (that I've seen linked from here, anyway) is consistently insightful and clear-headed, so I was actually somewhat surprised to read a "there is no reality" line from him.

Perhaps the real rationality takeaway here is that sometimes the people who talk about the "objective world" and "looking at reality" and so forth are the ones who are engaging in woo and irrational nonsense, which baits their opponents into this strange arguing-against-objective-reality position. The lesson, then, is that we should look at how people actually derive their beliefs, not how objective they claim they're being.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 06 November 2012 11:27:06PM *  60 points [-]

If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion corporation recommends killing them.

--Borderlands 2

Comment author: Aurora 07 November 2012 01:20:33AM 1 point [-]

I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it. -George Carlin

Comment author: RobertPearson 07 November 2012 01:36:52AM *  2 points [-]

“Must a name mean something?" Alice asked doubtfully.

Of course it must," Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh; "my name means the shape I am - and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.”

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Comment author: Username 07 November 2012 02:12:18AM *  0 points [-]

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"

"The real value of an education has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:

"This is water."

--- David Foster Wallace in his commencement speech to Kenyon College, This is Water. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

Comment author: Vaniver 07 November 2012 03:38:11AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Username 07 November 2012 03:39:37AM 0 points [-]

My mistake, I searched but didn't see it.

Comment author: Kyre 07 November 2012 04:41:54AM 8 points [-]

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

Charles Mackay from "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

Comment author: Kyre 07 November 2012 04:42:29AM 2 points [-]

Men go crazy in congregations; they only get better one by one

Sting

Comment author: Kyre 07 November 2012 04:51:30AM 3 points [-]

As soon as an Analytical Engine exists, it will necessarily guide the future course of the science.

Charles Babbage

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 07 November 2012 05:30:24AM *  -2 points [-]

As soon as an Analytical Engine exists, it will necessarily guide the future course of the science.

I suppose we don't know if this is true, since it doesn't yet exist. BTW, what has this to do with rationality?

Comment author: JoachimSchipper 07 November 2012 07:23:34AM 4 points [-]

Computers have revolutionized most fields of science. I take it as a general "yay science/engineer/computers" quote.

Comment author: scav 08 November 2012 12:29:05PM 12 points [-]

It was a fairly audacious prediction, that turns out to have been true. I think it's fair to allow Babbage to describe as an analytical engine what we would nowadays call a "computer".

Comment author: Alejandro1 07 November 2012 06:20:08AM 27 points [-]

Breaking: To surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be best system for determining which of two things is larger.

--xkcd.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 November 2012 11:40:01AM 1 point [-]

What is he alluding to? (I don't watch lots of mass media these day, let alone American mass media.)

Comment author: TimS 07 November 2012 11:47:38AM 8 points [-]

I assume he is referring to the tendency of the media to call a persistent but small lead "too close to call." It's confusing the margin of lead with the likelihood of winning.

Either that, or the tendency of partisan commentators to make predictions for their side that were totally unconnected to state-by-state polling results.

Comment author: khafra 07 November 2012 12:42:53PM *  20 points [-]

Traditional pundits are intimidated and frightened by Nate Silver's quantitative analysis. They see their comfy job pandering to the beliefs-as-attire market, with no expectation of accuracy, disappearing if pundits who can actually predict things take over.

edit: This comment, further down the page, explains well.

Comment author: Alejandro1 07 November 2012 08:02:17PM 16 points [-]

Exactly. Here is an excellent article elaborating further. (Only quibble is that is was not just Silver; other data-based analysts like Sam Wang and Josh Putnam made essentially the same predictions):

When we talk about the epistemology of journalism, it all eventually ties into objectivity. The journalistic norm of objectivity is more than just a careful neutrality or attempt to appear unbiased; for journalists, it’s the grounds on which they claim the authority to describe reality to us. And the authority of objectivity is rooted in a particular process.

That process is very roughly this: Journalists get access to privileged information from official sources, then evaluate, filter, and order it through the rather ineffable quality alternatively known as “news judgment,” “news sense,” or “savvy.” This norm of objectivity is how political journalists say to the public (and to themselves), “This is why you can trust what we say we know — because we found it out through this process.” (This is far from a new observation – there are decades of sociological research on this.)

Silver’s process — his epistemology — is almost exactly the opposite of this:

Where political journalists’ information is privileged, his is public, coming from poll results that all the rest of us see, too.

Where political journalists’ information is evaluated through a subjective and nebulous professional/cultural sense of judgment, his evaluation is systematic and scientifically based. It involves judgment, too, but because it’s based in a scientific process, we can trace how he applied that judgment to reach his conclusions.

(…)

Joe Scarborough gets us even closer to the clash between processes of knowing when he tells Byers, “Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it’s the same thing.” How does Scarborough know that Silver’s estimate is incorrect? He talked to sources in both campaigns. In Scarborough’s journalistic epistemology, this is the trump card: Silver’s methods cannot possibly produce more reliable information than the official sources themselves. These are the savviest, highest inside sources. They are the strongest form of epistemological proof — a “case closed” in an argument against calculations and numbers.

The other objection political journalists/pundits have to Silver’s process is evident here, too. They don’t just have a problem with how he knows what he knows, but with how he states it, too. Essentially, they are mistaking specificity for certainty. To them, the specificity of Silver’s projections smack of arrogance because, again, their ways of knowing are incapable of producing that kind of specificity. It has to be an overstatement.

In actuality, of course, Silver’s specificity isn’t arrogance at all — it’s the natural product of a scientific, statistical way of producing knowledge. Statistical analyses produce specific numbers by their very nature. That doesn’t mean they’re certain: In fact, the epistemology of social science has long been far more tentative in reaching conclusions than the epistemology of journalism. As many people have noted over the past few days, a probability is not a prediction.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 November 2012 12:01:22AM 0 points [-]

If you look at the picture it seems to be: Numbers are better than fancy visualsations.

Comment author: CharlieDavies 09 November 2012 12:09:49AM 1 point [-]

Many Republican pundits had elaborate theories about how polls were understating Romney's chances in the recent US presidential election, but the results turned out to match polls quite well.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 07 November 2012 07:56:04AM *  18 points [-]

"Because they were hypocrites," Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, "the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none."

"So they were morally superior to the Victorians-" Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under. "-even though-in fact, because-they had no morals at all." There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around the copper table.

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception-he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."

"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."

"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved-the missteps we make along the way are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."

— Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age

Comment author: steven0461 07 November 2012 09:12:35AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 07 November 2012 02:54:14PM *  0 points [-]

Of course it's easy to say one has no morals at all when the morals in question are so much more complicated - they'll seem permissive by your ability to manipulate them in contrived edge cases. This complication, though, is for adaptation to the real world - they have something useful to say about very real cases that Victorian morality completely chokes and dies on.

But that's not really in conflict with the point of the quote, is it?

Comment author: Scottbert 07 November 2012 07:37:19PM *  9 points [-]

Girl 1: Because distance is infinitely divisible, if you assign number pairs to each letter of the alphabet, you can specify any string of letters just by pointing to a very specific place on this centimeter and getting its decimal output. In fact, that sentence I just said is at a particular point on the centimeter, as was this one, and whatever you or I say in the future. The centimeter has read every book there will ever be and knows every scientific fact that can be. It knows the future of our friendship. It knows how we'll die. It knows how the universe ends and how it began.

Girl 2: What's the point of doing anything then?

Girl 1: Well, the centimeter also "knows" a bunch of crazy stuff.

Centimeter callouts: "2+2=3" "Up is down, rotated 90 degrees" "Ponies aren't awesome"

Girl 2: So I know infinity less than the centimeter, but have infinity better discretion.

Girl 1: Yeah, that's basically your life. You know relatively no information, but you're relatively great at using it.

Girl 2: I bet if I tell Bobby about this, he'll like me.

Girl 1: Well, you're okay at using it.

--Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal