"surely you can at least imagine a hypothetical set of historical data for which I'd be right"
- aronwall
It feels dishonest to say "The evidence supports me, and I'm sure a reasonable person can see how that would be the case" until and unless you actually are willing to share that evidence.
I know I'd be just as irked if Eliezer made a post saying "Science has proven Cryonics right! I'll let you know the details in a few months", so I don't think it's just bias against the conclusion.
As a POLICY, I don't want posts like the one I replied to here in LessWrong. I want people I can actually engage and talk to, or who are at least clear and up-front that they will engage me later.
If he'd just said "I'm still collecting my thoughts, but I'll get back to you when I'm done" I'd be totally satisfied, but he instead argued for his position AND didn't provide evidence, and that combination just seems like a poisonous mix that could easily lay waste to a nice walled garden like this.
To be clear: my issue is NOT with aronwall, just this one particular comment.
Recently I started a new blog, named "Undivided Looking: comments on physics and theology". You can find it here:
http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/
My main goals are to:
(My day job is researching quantum gravity at UC Santa Barbara, so I actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to the science.)
I'm posting this to Less Wrong in order to solicit comments from intelligent and civil members of the rationalist community. I'm a Christian, but I want to avoid groupthink in the comments section, since I believe ideas should be developed and tested around people with multiple viewpoints. So if anyone is willing to come and provide some friendly pushback from a rationalist perspective, that would be much appreciated.
Since the Less Wrong community is particularly interested in discussing epistemic norms, I'd be especially happy to get feedback on this series of posts:
Pillars of Science: Summary and Questions
in which I identify 6 different features of scientific inquiry which help account for its phenomenal success. (Religion is only mentioned tangentially in this particular series, so even if you aren't interested in rehashing religious debates, you could still make a valuable contribution there.)
Thanks!