Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Sean4 comments on Typicality and Asymmetrical Similarity - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 February 2008 09:20PM

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

Comments (66)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Sean4 07 February 2008 09:12:25AM 6 points [-]

The "errors" in the arguments are not relevant. When surveying people who aren't disease biologists, it doesn't matter if there are specific one-way paths in the cutting edge research, what matters are the processes that inform the decisions. In the absence of any biological information, there's no indication to tilt the scales one way or another. If these people were saying 'well, robins have gene XYZZY which causes etc.', but they aren't, they're functioning on categories as they don't have any real information on cross-species disease. Accidental cancellation is not an example of a lack of bias.

If all gray squirrels hold this "disease" DNA, and are completely unaffected by it, it doesn't seem any more a disease than mitochondria or stomach flora. If there are gray squirrels without it, and they can contract it from red squirrels, then the disease does indeed pass both ways even though gray squirrels are asymptomatic.

Pointing out _why_ an error in an element of the argument matters would be relevant.

Comment author: epigeios 11 May 2012 07:19:53PM *  -1 points [-]

The errors are relevant. So what if the person who mentions an error doesn't have the capacity to deduce the relevancy? It's still possible that someone on here will deduce the relevancy.

Your post, by contrast, as well as Bob3's just above, are making the assumption that the only argument to be found is the one that was stated. Caledonian2 is right, and if you weren't focused on the irrelevancy of his argument, you might have been able to find the relevancy of his point.

Granted, Caledonian2 did his best to find an argument fitting his idea, and the argument he picked isn't necessarily relevant. He probably did this because of the scientific bias of this message board, where I myself have previously succumbed to the fear that I need to have a valid argument to back up my point, lest others attack me for not having one. But none of that diminishes the potential relevancy of his idea