You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

David_Gerard comments on Open thread, January 25- February 1 - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: NancyLebovitz 25 January 2014 02:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (316)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: David_Gerard 31 January 2014 09:30:26PM *  2 points [-]

I hadn't realised before that Max Tegmark's work was actually funded by a massive grant from the Templeton Foundation. $9 million to found FQXI.

The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to spray around more money than most academics could dream of - $9 million for philosophy! - seeking to try to blur the lines between science and religion and corrupt the public discourse. The best interpretation that can reasonably be put on taking the Templeton shilling is that one is doing so cynically.

This is not pleasing news, not at all.

Comment author: Nornagest 31 January 2014 10:18:13PM *  1 point [-]

The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is [...] to try to blur the lines between science and religion and corrupt the public discourse.

What's your basis for this interpretation? And particularly the "corrupt the public discourse" bit? I read your link, and I remember it getting briefly badmouthed in The God Delusion, but I'd prefer something a little more solid to go on, since this seems to lie on the sharp side of Hanlon's razor.

Comment author: ahbwramc 31 January 2014 10:30:15PM 0 points [-]

Well, here's Sean Carroll's take on the matter. They don't seem like the worst organization in the world or anything, but I too was disappointed to hear about Max accepting their money.

Comment author: Nornagest 31 January 2014 11:08:02PM 1 point [-]

Thanks, that's the kind of thing I was looking for. I'd expect (boundedly) rational people to be able to disagree on the utility of promoting secularism, but Carroll's take on it does seem like a reasonable and un-Hanlony approach to the issue.

Comment author: David_Gerard 31 January 2014 10:40:52PM 0 points [-]

If I was offered $9m, I'd take it! Not that anyone's offering. But it's definitely a significant hit to his credibility.