= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Why I Am Not a Rationalist, or, why several of my friends warned me that this is a cult - 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)
Comments (192)
So what's the bailey, here? You make it seem like having obviously true premises is a bad thing.
Note, a progressive series of less firmly held claims are NOT Motte and Bailey, if you aren't vacillating on what each means.
It's a problem if anyone ends up sneaking in connotations.
Yes, that's what an example would look like. Can anyone provide any?
To paraphrase someone else's example, the motte is that science/reason helps people be right, and the bailey is that the LW memeplex is all correct and the best use of one's time (the memeplex including maximum support of abstract research about "friendly" AI, frequent attendance of LW self-help events, cryonics, and evangelizing Rationalism).
Here's the problem with your attempting to apply Motte and Bailey to that:
If challenged on those other things, we do not reply that 'rationalism is just science/reason helps people be right, how could you possibly oppose it?' Well, except for the last, which really seems like that actually addresses the problem.
So, it's just a perfectly ordinary (and acceptable) sequence of progressively more controversial claims, and not a Motte-and-Bailey system.
Different members act as different parts of the motte and bailey: some argue for extreme things; others say those extreme things are not "real" Rationalism
That structure makes it not motte and bailey - the motte must be friendly to the bailey, not hostile to it!