= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Help us Optimize the Contents of the Sequences eBook - 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 (73)
He's not making it up out of whole cloth, though he's being significantly uncharitable.
More precisely, I think this is a reference to Einstein's Speed and related Sequence posts, where EY argues that Einstein's unusual success at understanding physical law was significantly due to updating on all available Bayesian evidence rather than just the subset of such evidence that non-Bayesian scientists use.
That said, it's of course a huge jump from "Einstein would not have been as successful had he not been a Bayesian" to "any Bayesian can be as successful as Einstein," and I don't recall EY (or anyone else) ever making the latter claim.
It seems to me that accusing someone of saying "outright nonsense" like this when they in fact did not say something like that and said only something vaguely related is an act that I would like to see discouraged when detected. Straw men are not welcome on lesswrong!
More precisely, the author 'made this up' because he believes it is acceptable to distort reality to that degree when arguing in this environment. Reception of the claim at the time I replied to it indicated that this belief is correct. I would prefer it if this were not so.
I share your preference for discouraging straw men and uncharitable readings.