= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Rationality Quotes August 2014 - 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 (233)
Refuting frequently appearing bullshit could be made more efficient by having a web page with standard explanations which could be linked from the debate. Posting a link (perhaps with a short summary, which could also be provided on the top of that web page) does not require too much energy.
Which would create another problem, of protecting that web page from bullshit created by reversing stupidity, undiscriminating skepticism, or simply affective death spirals about that web page. (Yes, I'm thinking about RationalWiki.) Maybe we could have multiple anti-bullshit websites, which would sometimes explain using their own words, and sometimes merely by linking to another website's explanation they agree with.
I think that's a bad description. The kind of people on RationalWiki are very discriminating. When something is said by an Authority they trust they aren't skeptic and when something is said by someone they don't trust they are very "skeptic".
I don't think that framing yourself as "anti-bullshit" is helpful. It's makes more sense to frame yourself as being pro-evidence. We already do have multiple websites that do explain issues.
I personally like Skeptics Stackexchange. If I come about a new claim I often simply go and open a question over there.
When it comes to an issue such as vaccination I think Vox has a decent primer: http://www.vox.com/cards/vaccines/what-is-vaccine