redlizard comments on Rationality Quotes Thread December 2015 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: elharo 02 December 2015 11:28AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (75)
Tags: quotes

Comments (75)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: redlizard 02 December 2015 07:08:40PM *  0 points [-]

Consensus tends to be dominated by those who will not shift their purported beliefs in the face of evidence and rational argument.

Jim

Comment author: gjm 02 December 2015 11:06:06PM 7 points [-]

This appears to be empirically incorrect, at least in some fields. A few examples:

  • Creationists are much less willing to adjust their beliefs on the basis of evidence and argument than scientifically-minded evolutionists, but evolution rather than special creation is the consensus position these days.
  • It looks to me (though I confess I haven't looked super-hard) as if the most stubborn-minded economists are the adherents of at-least-slightly-fringey theories like "Austrian" economics rather than the somewhere-between-Chicago-and-Keynes mainstream.
  • Consensus views in hard sciences like physics are typically formed by evidence and rational argument.
Comment author: DanArmak 06 December 2015 03:42:04PM *  4 points [-]

We have a special name for this; it's called science, and it's rather rare. It might still be a pretty good generalization of all human behavior to say that consensus tends to be dominated by those who won't change their opinion.

Actually, I don't think it's a good generalization for reasons other than science. Most conflicts or debates devolve to politics, where people support someone instead of some opinion or position. And in politics, the top person or party is often replaced by a different one.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 06 December 2015 09:16:07PM 1 point [-]

We have a special name for this; it's called science, and it's rather rare.

Even a lot of what gets called "science" isn't.

Comment author: Viliam 06 December 2015 09:52:46PM *  2 points [-]

Depends on what you mean by "consensus". For example, in some organizations it means "we will not make a decision until literally everyone agrees with it". In which case, stubborn people make all the decisions (until the others get sufficiently pissed off and fire them).

Comment author: gjm 06 December 2015 10:33:18PM -1 points [-]

Probably true. But I don't think that's the sort of thing Jim is talking about in the post redlizard was quoting from; do you?

Comment author: Viliam 06 December 2015 11:13:07PM *  0 points [-]

Oh. I haven't followed the link before commenting.

Now I did... and I don't really see the connection between the article and consensus. The most prominent example is how managers misunderstood the technical issues with Challenger: but that's about putting technically unsavvy managers into positions of power over engineers, not about consensus.

(I wonder if this is an example of a pattern: "Make a statement. Write an article mostly about something else, using arguments that a reader will probably agree with. At the end, a careless reader is convinced about the statement.")

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 07 December 2015 07:17:38PM 2 points [-]

but that's about putting technically unsavvy managers into positions of power over engineers,

Technically unsavy manages who insisted that the engineers tell them what they wanted to hear, i.e., who insisted that they be included in the consensus and then refused to shift their position.

Comment author: gjm 06 December 2015 11:42:12PM -1 points [-]

I think that level of logical rigour is par for the course for this particular author.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit