= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - 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 (866)
The discussion I referenced was about that an ideological turing test is a way to test the validity of arguments.
I don't think that you are forbidden to talk about the validity of religion because it's wrong. It just that there aren't many interesting things you can say about the issue.
If you write a boring post against religion that argues against a few strawman you get voted down, but that doesn't mean that the topic is inherently forbidden.
Let's say Nassim Taleb would come to Lesswrong and argue his position on religion. Do you really think that LW consensus would be: "Go away, because the topic is dealt with."?
No, the discussion could be a fruitful discussion about how to choose bayesian priors.