= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Problems in Education - 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 (318)
Spreading false data as a "test of rationality" would be actively harmful. But I can imagine people misunderstanding that.
Rationality is a method of working with the data you have. You should update on evidence correctly, instead of updating incorrectly. You should be able to recognize that this specific piece of evidence contradicts the model based on all other evidence, which makes this specific piece of evidence suspicious. But also should estimate your degree of certainty in a given model.
It is proper to say "I defy the data" when one's model is based on a lot of reliable evidence. Saying it more often would be overconfidence, not rationality.
I was assuming that if it were a hoax, they'd let people know in another few days with a gloating update.
I agree that this would be the most likely course of action if the essay is a hoax, but I think it would still risk being harmful overall, since retractions generally don't result in an appropriate corresponding decrease in confidence in the material that was originally presented. I'd expect Less Wrong members in general to be better at reducing their confidence in a retracted claim than most people, but better is not necessarily good enough.