= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - 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 (381)
I strongly recommend not using stupid. It's less distracting to just point out mistakes without using insults.
changed to unreasonable if that helps
That is less insulting, and therefore an improvement. A version that's not even a little insulting might look something like "Not all simulations are ancestral." That approach expresses disagreement with the original claim, but doesn't connote anything about the person who made it.
However, your version completely skips what I am actually saying - that I think that whole line of thinking is bad.
There's a difference between “it is unreasonable to think X” and “not X”. (Let X equal “the sixteenth decimal digit of the fine structure constant is 3”, for example.)
(I'd use “There's no obvious good reason to think that all simulations are ancestral.”)
"Unreasonable" is an improvement, but I'd take it further to "mistaken" or "highly implausible".
Actually, I agree with you about the likelihood of numerous sorts of simulations that highly outnumber ancestor simulations.