= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Justifiable Erroneous Scientific Pessimism - 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 (116)
This appears to me to be an instance of a common error: assuming that when someone says something, they intended every inference you find it natural to make from it. It doesn't appear to me, at all, that for Luke to have been wrong in the way I say he was he needs to have been a liar or bozo or whatever else you're trying to suggest I accused him of being.
(I'm puzzled, too. We seem to be agreed that Luke's quotation gives a misleading impression about what claim Taube was making, and -- rightly, in my opinion -- you don't appear to have concluded from this that Luke was dishonestly cherrypicking and needs the bozo bit flipped. But I don't understand, at all, why giving a misleading impression about Taube's relevant expertise is a worse thing to "accuse" him of than giving a misleading impression about what Taube was claiming. Either of them means that the quotation from Taube fails to serve the purpose Luke put it there for.)
If you don't especially care what I actually think, then what the hell are you doing putting words into my mouth about how librarians are uninteresting low-status unintellectual drudges? (Which, just in case it needs saying again, in no way resemble my actual opinion.)
I meant what I said. I did not mean what you said. I also did not mean the particular equally-ridiculous thing you now sarcastically suggest I could have meant. I honestly have no idea what I've done to bring forth all this hostility, but if you want an actual reasoned discussion then I politely suggest that you stop flinging shit at me and then we can have one.
Those last five words are yours, not mine. I'm sure you can find definitions according to which Taube's work was "science". I'm also sure you can quickly and easily think of plenty of instances where "no matter how broadly defined" ends up meaning "way too broadly defined for most purposes". (Here's an extreme example: Richard Dawkins is on record as accepting the term "cultural Christian" as applying to him. I would accordingly not say that RD cannot be construed as 'Christian' no matter how broadly defined -- but, none the less, for most purposes describing him as a Christian would be silly. Taube's work is certainly nearer to being science than Richard Dawkins is to being a Christian; the point of the example is to clarify my point, not to be a perfect analogy.)
Ian Bostridge has a doctorate in history, and spent some time as an academic historian. However, I would not now call him a historian but a singer. (Or, more specifically, a tenor.) Angela Merkel has a PhD in physics, but I wouldn't now call her a physicist but a politician (or, perhaps, some more august term along those lines). George Soros has a PhD in philosophy but I wouldn't call him a philosopher.
So: no, the fact that someone got a PhD in philosophy in 1935 is not sufficient reason to call them a philosopher in 1960. As I say, having a PhD in philosophy is certainly quite like being a philosopher; it's certainly not wholly irrelevant; I oversimplified and I shouldn't have. But it's not the same thing.
It's a common error indeed, and one that is justifiable when enough other people draw that error. Yeah Hitler said to kill all the Jews, but he really meant to kill the Jew inside, not real Jews. If I may quote your other comment:
Indeed.
Right, because you just threw that in for no reason...
And I even gave several. Feel free to deal with the examples; do you think computer science and AI are not 'science'?
I don't see what's the least bit silly about describing him a a "cultural Christian" especially if he accepts the label. He was indeed raised in a Christian culture and implicitly accepts a lot of the background beliefs like belief in guilt and sin (heck, I still think in those terms to some degree and say things like 'goddamn it'); even if we don't go quite as far as Moldbug in diagnosing Dawkins as holding to a puritanical secular Christanity, the influence is ineradicable. There is no view from nowhere.
Wow, so not only is he a trained historian who has published & defended his doctorate of original research, you describe him as actually having been in academia post-graduate school, and you still won't describe him as a historian? Would I describe him as a historian? Heck yes. Because if I won't even grant that description to Bostridge, I don't know who the heck I would grant it to. You know, describing someone as a historian is not committing to describing him as a 'great historian' or a 'ground-breaking historian' or a 'famous historian'. You don't need to be Marvin Minsky to be called 'an AI researcher' and you don't need to be a pre-eminent figure to be described as a worker in a field. Even a bad programmer is still a 'programmer'; someone who has moved up into management is still a programmer even if they haven't written a large program in years.
From Wikipedia: "After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry,[17] she worked as a researcher and published several papers."
But no, all that is chopped liver because gjm doesn't think she's a physicist/chemist.
I imagine Soros would be disappointed to hear that; his Popperian philosophy grounds his 'reflexivity' on which he has written extensively and believes can significantly influence economics as it's currently practiced.
It is more than sufficient, Taube had excellent training (the University of Chicago, especially in the 1930s thanks to Adler & Hutchinson, was a philosophy powerhouse, and still is to some extent - ranked #24 in the Anglosphere by Leiter), received his PhD, kept up with the issues both as a practitioner and commenter, and was reportedly working on a philosophy book when he died. He was a philosopher. And your other examples were hardly better.
On flipping the bozo bit
Before you bother to read any of what follows, I would be grateful if you would answer the following question: Have you, in fact, bozo-bitted me? Because I've been proceeding on the assumption that it is in principle possible for us to have a reasoned discussion, but that's looking less and less true, and if I'm wasting my time here then I'd prefer to stop.
On librarians and librarianship
Unless I misunderstand you badly, you are arguing either that I have been lying constantly about this or that I am appallingly unaware of my own opinions and attitudes and you know them better than I do. And, if I understand this remark correctly ...
... your basis for this is that you can't think of any reason why I might have mentioned that Taube was a librarian other than that I have "contempt for librarians" and that I wanted to put Taube down by calling him names.
So, allow me to propose a very simple alternative explanation (which is, in fact, the correct explanation, so far as I can tell by introspection): I said it because, having listed a bunch of things that weren't Taube's profession, it seemed appropriate to say what his profession actually was.
On the basis of this thread so far, I'm guessing that you still don't believe me; so let me ask: Is there, in fact, anything I could possibly say or do that would convince you that I do not hold librarians in contempt? Because it looks to me as if there isn't, and it seems rather odd that describing someone who was in fact a librarian as a librarian could be such strong evidence of contempt for librarians as to outweigh all future testimony from the person in question.
On professions and the like
There are at least three things you can mean by saying someone is, e.g., "a biologist". (1) That they know something about biology and think about it from time to time. (2) That doing biology is their job, or at least that they do it as much and as well as you could reasonably expect if it were. (3) That, regardless of how much biology they actually do, they have at least some (fairly high) threshold level of expertise in it.
Angela Merkel is surely a physicist(1). She is not a physicist(2) now, although she used to be. Whether she's a physicist(3) depends on what threshold we pick and on the extent to which she's kept up her expertise. Similarly, Ian Bostridge is a historian(1), not a historian(2) so far as I know, and might or might not be a historian(3), and similarly for George Soros and philosophy.
In general, being an X PhD is a guarantee of being an Xer(1) and (at least for a while; knowledge decays) of being an Xer(3) for some plausible choices of threshold; it is of course no guarantee of being an Xer(2).
You appear to be taking the position that it is never reasonable to deny that someone with an X PhD is "an Xer". That seems like excessive credentialism to me.
The relevant notion of "scientist", "philosopher", etc., here was never made explicit. I think I've had meaning 2 in mind sometimes and meaning 3 in mind sometimes. Eliezer's original post about Pascalian wagers takes Enrico Fermi as its leading example, and talks about "famous scientists" and "prestigious scientists" in general. The present post takes Lord Kelvin as another example, but also points to skepticism about flying machines (which was not generally from famous scientists). So I don't know what the "right" threshold for meaning 3 would be here, but it seems like it should be fairly high.
Bostridge, Merkel and Soros seem to me like pretty decent examples of people who are no longer Xers(2), and probably aren't Xers(3) with a high threshold. I could be wrong about some or all of them, though; I mentioned them only to make the more general point that holding a doctoral degree is no guarantee of being an Xer(2) or Xer(3) with high threshold.
On Taube and his qualifications
Taube was an expert in the indexing of documents, and an innovator in that field. In your opinion, does that amount to expertise in computer chess-playing comparable to, say, Fermi's expertise in nuclear fission?
Taube was (I think; perhaps it was actually others in his company who were concerned with this) an expert in automated punched-card reading machines. Does that amount to expertise in computer chess-playing comparable to, etc.?
Taube held a PhD in philosophy; I think his thesis was on the history of philosophical thought about causality. Does that amount to, etc., etc.?
I repeat: Mortimer Taube was an impressive person. He was clearly very smart. He accomplished more than I am ever likely to. I do not hold him in contempt. Still less do I hold him in contempt for having been a librarian. I simply don't think that his opinions on computer chess-playing are the same kind of thing as Fermi's opinions on nuclear fission, or Kelvin's on the age of the earth.