= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Salemicus comments on Rationality Quotes August 2013 - 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 (733)
It doesn't prove it's a good idea, but it's evidence in its favour.
Well, sure. But that doesn't mean it's very strong evidence: I'd expect to see an average human (or nation) do something stupid almost as often as they do something intelligent.
We are obviously starting from very different premises. To me, the fact that lots of people do something is very strong evidence that the behaviour is, at least, not maladaptive, and the burden of proof is very much on the person suggesting that it is. And the more widespread the behaviour, the stronger the burden.
Alternatively, you could just look at the evidence. When legal systems have replaced bright-line rules with 15-factor balancing tests, has that led to better outcomes for society as a whole? Consider in particular the criteria for the Rule of Law. In the mid-20th century, co-incident with high modernism and utilitarianism, these multi-part, multi-factor balancing tests were all the rage. Why are they now held in such disdain?
Unfortunately, the fact that lots of people do something may merely be an indication of a very successful meme: consider major religions.
I will certainly grant that having a sharp restriction is better than a 15-factor balancing test, but I'm not arguing for 15-factor balancing tests.
I'd go further, but I've just noticed that I don't really have much evidence for this belief, and I should probably go see how accomplished Chinese universities (which judge purely off the gaokao) are versus American universities first.