= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Open Thread, May 11 - May 17, 2015 - 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 (247)
I 've notice that problem, but I think it is a bit dramatic to call it rationality breaking. I think it's more of a problem of calling two things, the winning thing amd the truth seeking thing, by one name.
Do you really think there's a strong firewall in the minds of most of this community between the two concepts?
More, do you think the word "rationality", in view of the fact that the word that happens to refer to two concepts which are in occasional opposition, makes for a mentally healthy part of one's identity?
Eliezer's sequences certainly don't treat the two ideas as distinct. Indeed, if they did, we'd be calling "the winning thing" by its proper name, pragmatism.
Which values am I supposed to answere that by? Obviously it would be bad by e rationality, but it keeps going because i rationality brings benefits to people who can create a united front against the Enemy,
That presumes an enemy. If deliberate, the most likely candidate for the enemy in this case, to my eyes, would be the epistemological rationalists themselves.
I was thinking of the fundies