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.

Evan_Gaensbauer comments on What subjects are important to rationality, but not covered in Less Wrong? - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: casebash 27 February 2015 11:57AM

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

Comments (66)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Evan_Gaensbauer 27 February 2015 01:42:23PM 0 points [-]

For example, I expect that sociology has a lot to say about many of our cultural assumptions. It is quite possible that 95% of it is either obvious or junk, but almost all fields have that 5% within them that could be valuable.

While I agree, doesn't it take already possessing a measure of rationality, or something, to pick out the valuable 5% of a field from between the pile of 95% junk. Sociology is presently as popular as it is because enough people thought it was a field that was valuable. They thought a lot of the 95% wasn't junk, even though it still was. What would we do different to do a better job extracting value? There are two failure modes:

  1. either we end up believing junk has value.
  2. or, we end up throwing the valuable in with the junk, passing it over, and being no better off.