thomblake comments on Configurations and Amplitude - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 April 2008 07:41AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (375)

Tags: science

Comments (375)

Sort By: Old

Show:

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

Comment author: thomblake 04 May 2012 06:25:07PM 2 points [-]

So if their theories are wrong, how do you explain that all this stuff, built on their theories, works?

In short, the hypothesis User:Monkeymind advanced (somewhere in that rambling mess) was that engineers do not base their technological work on math, but instead on trial-and-error. This is obviously an empirical question. Monkeymind offered as evidence that he himself has a bad grasp of mathematics and yet has built various devices using trial-and-error.

It's a potentially interesting idea. Do we have any real evidence that mathematics is a necessary component of the development of these devices? Anecdotally Norbert Wiener used mathematics to shoot down Japanese planes using radar.

Not that we have a really good alternative. Physical theories have been preferred for being more mathematically elegant ever since Newton, and before that we didn't really have physical theories. I think that Monkeymind's insistence that science is not for making predictions might be a hint that we're just talking about different things here.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 May 2012 07:43:18PM * 2 points [-]

We've been over this already.

Comment author: thomblake 04 May 2012 07:59:11PM 0 points [-]

Doesn't look like a definitive answer to me, though it does answer somewhat for that particular example.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 May 2012 08:29:38PM 0 points [-]

Agreed, it's not definitive. The best way to answer this would probably be to round up a bunch of engineers and ask them how much they use math. That would give us a quick average estimate of how today's engineers use math. Unless you're interested in specific important discoveries in engineering, in which case it would make more sense to examine the most influential breakthroughs case-by-case.

Comment author: Monkeymind 04 May 2012 08:59:18PM * -2 points [-]

Comment author: komponisto 04 May 2012 09:05:41PM * 0 points [-]

In short, the hypothesis User:Monkeymind advanced (somewhere in that rambling mess) was that engineers do not base their technological work on math, but instead on trial-and-error.

A hypothesis that collapses into category-erroneous incoherence as soon as you realize that math can also be done via trial-and-error.

Comment author: Monkeymind comment score below threshold [+] (62 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 07 May 2012 08:52:29PM * 13 points [-]

With minus 373 Karma points for the last 30 days under your belt, I think you should take a hint and stop posting. If this comment is upvoted/not convincingly disputed (by others), I'm going to start removing some of the worse comments you make in the near future.

Comment author: Monkeymind 08 May 2012 04:04:51PM 2 points [-]

BTW, I will go by whatever the house rules are. I am not here to be argumentative or disagreeable. I am here to learn. I do not argue for the sake of argument. I argue to become Less Wrong!

Originally I thot this was a physics forum. I came to this thread and got into the discussion w/o reading through the website. My bad! I have tapped out of the thread and will leave it alone. If you must censor me can you please delete all my posts, to be fair. It is hard enough to get people not to take things out of context as it is.

Comment author: Danfly 08 May 2012 05:29:38PM 1 point [-]

If you were looking for a physics forum, this is probably more along the lines of what you were looking for.

Comment author: Amanojack 08 May 2012 08:37:11PM * 4 points [-]

He's making some interesting points, and he gets extra credit in my view for taking so radical a view while usually remaining reasonable. I find his railing against prediction to be puzzling, but his semantic points and discussion of Ptolemaic explanations have given me a lot to think about.

I also noticed that even some of his friendly, reasoned posts were being downvoted to the same extreme negative levels, which seems unwarranted. He has posted too much without familiarizing himself with the norms here, but he shows sincerity and willingness to learn and adapt. He got a little testy a few times, but he also apologized a lot.

All in all, with a few notable exceptions, it looks like he is getting downvoted mainly for unfamiliarity with LW posting style and for disagreeing with "settled science" (I myself am not too partial to that term). Perhaps also for some unconventional spellings and other idiosyncrasies.

I'm open to being corrected on this, but I think I have read this entire thread and I am pretty sure Monkeymind is not deliberately trolling. High inferential distance feels like trolling so often that it's almost a forum trope. I myself am enjoying some of his posts and the responses.

I'll change my mind if he continues with the present posting style, though.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2012 08:43:24PM 3 points [-]

I am pretty sure Monkeymind is not deliberately trolling

Good intentions don't always save the day.

Comment author: Monkeymind 08 May 2012 08:53:02PM -1 points [-]

Just tell me what you want, and I'll comply.

If you prefer not having disagreement, I'll just have to read and not participate. I can't simply agree because others think differently. Surely that is not what this is about.

Comment author: dlthomas comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

Comment author: TimS 08 May 2012 10:17:42PM 3 points [-]

If you interpret his comments in light of his disbelief in prediction, empiricism, and the practical mathematics, then his posts have no value.

Comment author: albeola 08 May 2012 09:25:43PM 7 points [-]

Please crack down earlier, harder, and more often. Nobody is going to die from it. Higher average comment quality will attract better commenters in a virtuous circle. There's no excuse for tolerating the endless nonsense that some commenters post, and those enabling them by responding to them should stop.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 May 2012 09:28:19PM 1 point [-]

This. We should have been done with this several days ago.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2012 09:33:23PM * 9 points [-]

those enabling them by responding to them should stop.

This seems to be the main problem, but my recent attempts to discourage those who make high-quality contributions to hopeless or malignant conversations didn't stir much enthusiasm, so it'd probably take a lot of effort to change this.

(A specific suggestion I have is to establish a community norm of downvoting those participating in hopeless conversations, even if their contributions are high-quality.)

Please crack down earlier, harder, and more often.

This is something new for LW, in fact this appears to be the first time when a non-Eliezer moderator stepped forward to implement this measure (in this case prompted by Eliezer's recent statement that deleting posts by a chronically downvoted user who doesn't stop is to be considered a general policy).

Comment author: thomblake 08 May 2012 11:23:05PM 1 point [-]

I'm generally against ban-level measures, as such measures are very damaging and the comments don't seem particularly so.

Comment author: albeola 08 May 2012 11:36:06PM 2 points [-]

such measures are very damaging

Why?

Comment author: thomblake 08 May 2012 11:44:59PM 5 points [-]

Just a few reasons: Removing comments happens silently and without a trace. Such tools can be used by the establishment to quiet dissent. They can break existing conversations. We need more contrarians, not fewer. By removing examples of what not to do, we can no longer point at them as examples. Even if the comments were on the whole annoying, there might be interesting stuff in there worth responding to. Bans, more than downvotes, outright discourage participation amongst those who are in particular need of our help. Freedom of speech is valuable in itself, and its presence here is aesthetically pleasing.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2012 11:51:32PM * 3 points [-]

The current procedure: (1) banning mode is only triggered by a user systematically accumulating some crazy amount of negative Karma quickly, (2) you get an explicit statement of banning-mode having been triggered, where others can appeal/discuss the decision, (3) you are free to continue participating if you somehow manage to produce the kind of comments that don't get downvoted (so it's more of a parole). In no other cases do the comments get banned.

continue this thread »

Comment author: albeola 09 May 2012 12:06:31AM * 0 points [-]

Removing comments happens silently and without a trace. Such tools can be used by the establishment to quiet dissent.

So let's have a policy that banned commenters get to post a link to their anti-LW blog. We could list all the anti-LW blogs on a wiki page or something.

They can break existing conversations.

By removing examples of what not to do, we can no longer point at them as examples.

I don't think anyone is proposing to delete past comments.

We need more contrarians, not fewer.

If I promise to be a high-quality contrarian, can we ban the next five low-quality contrarians?

discourage participation amongst those who are in particular need of our help

This is a good thing. LW's positive impact is likely to lie mostly in building an effective movement, figuring out what issues are important, and pushing on those issues; all of these are helped by a high average level of rationality. LW's positive impact is unlikely to lie in trying to fix whatever hopeless cases wander by.

Freedom of speech is valuable in itself, and its presence here is aesthetically pleasing.

I disagree on both counts, and I suspect your other arguments may be rationalizations springing from this value judgement.

Comment author: TimS 09 May 2012 12:24:19AM * 1 point [-]

I'm generally in favor of more contrarians on LW, but a commenter who rejects empiricism across the board and cannot make any comments trying to understand the arguments in favor of empiricism adds no value here - especially if rejecting empiricism is all he is willing to talk about AND his comments dominate the sidebar for days.

In short, banning is a reasonable measure in this case. That said, I agree with your general points below.

Comment author: Bugmaster 09 May 2012 06:28:17PM 0 points [-]

...but a commenter who rejects empiricism across the board and cannot make any comments trying to understand the arguments in favor of empiricism adds no value here...

You are probably right about this particular case, but I'd hesitate to generalize it to all possible cases. I personally would find it quite interesting to engage in conversation (or debate) with a staunch anti-empiricist, assuming such a thing was even possible. I have talked to a few anti-empiricists before, and I find their position fascinating... listening to them feels like getting a glimpse of an utterly alien mind.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 May 2012 06:52:42PM * 1 point [-]

If you'll start a discussion topic or a thread somewhere on the issue, I'll argue against empiricism. We should trade understandings of what we take empiricism to be first though. Let me know if you're game.

continue this thread »

Comment author: alex_zag_al 08 May 2012 11:33:54PM 1 point [-]

This is the first time I've come across the suggestion to downvote well-thought-out contributions to silly conversations, actually, and I like it. I'll keep that in mind.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 09 May 2012 05:24:04PM * 2 points [-]

my recent attempts to discourage those who make high-quality contributions to hopeless or malignant conversations didn't stir much enthusiasm

FWIW, you brought me around on this point.

Comment author: thomblake 09 May 2012 05:45:14PM 0 points [-]

my recent attempts to discourage those who make high-quality contributions to hopeless or malignant conversations didn't stir much enthusiasm

I generally regard it as a norm that one should not respond to trolls and the like.

But I ignore that norm when I see the opportunity to help someone.

Comment author: Bugmaster 09 May 2012 06:23:12PM 0 points [-]

A specific suggestion I have is to establish a community norm of downvoting those participating in hopeless conversations, even if their contributions are high-quality

How do you define "hopeless", exactly ? Sometimes, a high-quality post in response to a troll's or idiot's thread can be quite helpful to other readers (and lurkers), who aren't trolls or idiots, but who are just misinformed or new to the topic. I personally have been such a lurker on several sites, but I do acknowledge that my personal experience is not statistically significant.

Comment deleted 08 May 2012 09:37:34PM * [-]

Comment deleted 08 May 2012 09:46:25PM [-]

Comment deleted 08 May 2012 10:04:18PM [-]

Comment author: komponisto 09 May 2012 01:12:50AM * 4 points [-]

On the contrary, the karma system exists in order to make such "cracking down" unnecessary. If comments are downvoted sufficiently, they are hidden. This system is supposed to replace moderator action. If moderators are going to control content then we may as well not have voting.

I'm speaking up in this instance in particular because it seems to me that the only problem with the commenter in question is an intellectual one. The person isn't behaving badly in any sense other than arguing for an incorrect view and not noticing the higher level of their opponents (which after all can hardly be expected). It's exactly the kind of thing that downvotes alone are supposed to handle. We're not talking about a troll or spammer.

The reason it's important to make this distinction is that censoring for purely viewpoint-based reasons is a Rubicon that we need not cross.

(EDIT: I'll also point out, for clarity, that I myself have not responded to any of Monkeymind's comments. Being opposed to banning a commenter is not to be confused with being in favor of engaging them.)

Comment author: TimS 09 May 2012 01:24:01AM 1 point [-]

There is a point at which not getting the message from karma is sufficiently damaging to the community that moderator action is called for.

Comment author: komponisto 09 May 2012 01:38:25AM 1 point [-]

Karma does not merely send messages to the user, but actually does the work of moderation by causing comments to be hidden.

Comment author: TimS 09 May 2012 02:41:55AM 0 points [-]

On the sidebar too? That's the most aggravating issue, to me.

Comment author: komponisto 09 May 2012 02:52:38AM 1 point [-]

If that's the problem, shouldn't the solution be to implement comment-hiding on the sidebar?

continue this thread »

Comment author: albeola 09 May 2012 02:10:51AM * 0 points [-]

The question isn't whether it "exists in order to" make cracking down unnecessary, or whether it "is supposed to" replace moderator action. The question is whether it actually does those things. And it's far from perfect at doing them. Yes, heavily downvoted comments take up a little less space in the recent comments and in the thread (at least if you have the willpower not to click on them! virtue of curiosity!) But they still take up some space; they take time to be downvoted enough to be hidden; I'm pretty sure they still appear in the sidebar; and the responses to them tend to appear in full, even though these too tend to be valueless. On a more abstract level, I'm worried that such comments influence a collective sense of what the current topic of the site is.

There are intellectual problems other than arguing for the wrong views, and ways of being ban-worthy other than being a troll or spammer. I haven't read most of the exchanges, but it was certainly my impression that Monkeymind has been communicating in ways that downvotes had made very clear weren't working for the audience, that he's been reasoning badly, and that he's been responding with hostility to downvotes. Are you sure that nobody has been banned for such behavior previously, and that a genuine Rubicon is being crossed here?

If the current system is so perfect that the comments being banned weren't attracting any attention anyway, is it really a big additional problem for them to be censored?

Comment author: Monkeymind 08 May 2012 10:23:50PM 1 point [-]

Are you asking me not to post anywhere in the community or just this thread?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2012 10:30:12PM * 9 points [-]

I'm asking you to not make comments that get downvoted (yes, it's a confusing hard-to-comply-with rule). Since this currently seems to be most of them, a good heuristic is to almost completely stop commenting and switch to the lurker-mode for at least a few months.

Comment author: Bugmaster 04 May 2012 09:10:54PM 0 points [-]

I personally am a programmer, but the software I write (as well as other software, written by smarter people) is used by genetic engineers. They engineer plants for specific desired traits (stronger drought resistance, bigger fruit, whatever). To do this, they use a ton of conventional math (statistics, specifically), as well as numerical optimization methods (such as neural networks) in order to determine (simplistically speaking) which nucleotides on the genome have an effect on which trait.

A single chromosome of corn consists of about 200,000,000 nucleotides. Good luck with that trial and error !

Comment author: Monkeymind comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

thomblake comments on Configurations and Amplitude - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (375)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (375)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login