= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on [META] Retributive downvoting: Why? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (110)
Hmm, interesting. Has it been on specific issues or across a broad variety of subjects?
Here, for example.
I will not discuss it further, to avoid who knows who, who does not permit a shadow of a doubt in "settled topics" like Goedel's theorems or Climate change or anything and downvotes accordingly.
If you do challenge the mainstream position in a "settled topic" your post should be longer than one sentence.
I have personally never read the proof of Gödel's theorem. I believe that it works because I trust in the authority of the mathematical community. I don't know to which extend the property of finitness is important for the proof. If you make such a claim in a "settled topics", it's your burden to explain to me why it's important.
If I read that discussion I come away with thinking that JoshuaZ knows what he's talking about. I don't know whether you understand the math that's involved on deep level. A lot of people without deep mathematical understanding can make a claim to challenge Gödel the way you did.
You should read more carefully.
I am not saying that Goedel's theorem does not hold. I am saying it is irrelevant for the finite sets.
I'm a bit confused that you chose this as an example, because he's clearly responding to you there rather than the other way around.
I've found this, too.
In that case, I would guess you were downvoted either by Will Sawin, or (more likely,) one of the people who upvoted him for correcting you.
Although note that in that case, although Will did find a coherent way of getting that sort of probability, if anything it underscores that Thomas's essential point there was correct: My probability estimate in that context was at best weird and more likely just poorly thought out, probably because of overcorrecting my overconfidence.