V_V comments on Why I Am Not a Rationalist, or, why several of my friends warned me that this is a cult - Less Wrong

12 Post author: Algernoq 13 July 2014 05:54PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (192)
Tags: cult rationality meta criticism

Comments (192)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: V_V 14 July 2014 01:58:04PM 0 points [-]

We only really agree on the first point. I'm skeptical of CFAR and the ritual crew but don't find these supposed comparisons to be particularly apt.

Ok.

I've watched MIRI improve their research program dramatically over the past four four years, and expect it to improve.

I agree that it improved dramatically, but only because the starting point was so low.
In recent years they released some very technical results. I think that some are probably wrong or trivial while others are probably correct and interesting, but I don't have the expertise to properly evaluate them, and this probably applies to most other people as well, which is why I think MIRI should seek peer-review by independent experts.

Well, 27.5% have a favorable opinion. The prior for it actually working seems optimistic but not overly so ("P(Cryonics): 22.8 + 28 (2, 10, 33) [n = 1500]"). At the least I'd say it's a controversial topic here, for all the usual reasons. (No, I'm not signed up for cryonics. No, I don't think it's very likely to work.)

As I said, these beliefs aren't necessarily held by a majority of lesswrongers, but are unusually common.

Surprised you didn't bring up MWI; that's the usual hobby horse for this kind of criticism.

MWI isn't pseudo-scientific per se. However, the claim that MWI is obviously true and whoever thinks otherwise must be ignorant or irrational is.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 July 2014 04:27:25PM 8 points [-]

I agree that it improved dramatically, but only because the starting point was so low.

The starting point is always low. Your criticism applies to me, a mainstream, applied mathematics graduate student.

  • I started research in my area around 2009.
  • I have two accepted papers, both of which are relatively technical but otherwise minor results.

I also wasn't working on two massive popularization projects, obtaining funding, courting researchers (well, I flirted a little bit) and so on.

Applied math is widely regarded as having a low barrier to publication, with acceptable peer-review times in the six to eighteen month range. (Anecdote: My first paper took nine months from draft to publication; my second took seven months so far and isn't in print yet. My academic brother's main publication took twenty months.) I think it's reasonable to consider this a lower bound on publications in game theory, decision theory, and mathematical logic.

Considering this, even if MIRI had sought to publish some of their technical writings in independent journals, we probably wouldn't know if most of them had been either accepted or rejected by now. If things don't change in five years, then I'll concede that their research program hasn't been particularly effective.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit