= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Nov. 02 - Nov. 08, 2015 - 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 (194)
Right.
To me, that looks like a slightly different angle on the same thing. If you want to nail down some things so you can say "hey look, we know some things", then studying high performing people wouldn't be the way to go. If, on the other hand, you're pretty okay with saying "hey look, of course we don't know anything, that's why we're still in exploration mode, but look at all this cool shit we're sifting through!", then it starts to look a lot more appealing.
It certainly doesn't surprise me that this kind of research isn't being done, and I can empathize with that embarrassment and wanting to have something nailed down to show the nay sayers. I also find it rather unfortunate. It strikes me as eating the marshmallow. Personally, I'd rather fast for a few days then drag back a moose.
Science itself is about the search for finding knowledge and not about sifting through cool shit. I also consider it okay that our society has academic psychologists who attempt to build reliable knowledge.
I think it's worthwhile to have different communities of people persuing different strategies of knowledge generation.
I don't disagree with any of the statements you made, and none of them are required to be false for my point to be valid.
I'm kinda getting the impression that you aren't being very careful or charitable in your reading of my comments. Is that impression wrong?
I don't think the point of a post is to show how another person is wrong or to only say things where who I'm talking about is likely to disagree.