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.

Jiro comments on [LINK] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: CronoDAS 18 July 2014 04:57AM

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

Comments (129)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 22 July 2014 03:37:49PM 1 point [-]

It's not meaningless in general, but it's meaningless for the purpose of deciding that they shouldn't see the basilisk because they'd misunderstand it. They don't misunderstand it--they know that it's false, and if they read the sequences they'd still know that it's false.

As I pointed out, you could still argue that they'd misunderstand the degree to which the basilisk is false, but I've yet to see anyone argue that.