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

Kal comments on Why is Mencius Moldbug so popular on Less Wrong? [Answer: He's not.] - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: arborealhominid 16 November 2012 06:37PM

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

Comments (262)

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

Comment author: Kal 26 November 2012 01:59:26PM *  1 point [-]

...it's still a lot more reliable than deduction from first principles...

I know it's been a while since this comment, but I wanted to comment that sound deduction (ie, logical reasoning) on top of correct premises trumps other forms of evidence, even well-controlled, large-sample experiments. Or put another way, the former renders the latter superfluous. We should not simply take anyone's word for the deduction of course - we have to double-check the premises and understand the deduction step by excruciating step. But once one is satisfied that the premises are correct and the deduction is bullet-proof, one can sleep soundly :)

Nothing trumps sound reasoning. The scientific method itself is a result of reasoning, a point well made by Moldbug here: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2010/06/three-homeworks-for-professor-hanson.html

As an analogy, I find fascinating the MWI vs Collapse debate at LW - Eliezer has concluded MWI wins as an outcome of pure reasoning. No empirical evidence required. It will be (is?) wonderful if (when?) we factorize large numbers quickly and that is evidence of MWI, but as above, it would be (is?) superfluous. If the reasoning offered by Eliezer is coherent (I don't know enough to judge), case closed. Please correct me if I have misunderstood. Thanks

Edit: MWI paragraph added.