= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
passive_fist comments on In praise of gullibility? - 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 (106)
Michael Smith touched on this in his keynote talk at LWCW last weekend. Don't believe something just because you've heard a good argument for it, he said (I think, reconstructing from memory, and possibly extrapolating as well). If you do that, you'll just change your mind as soon as you encounter a really good argument for the opposite (the process Yvain described). You don't really know something until you've reached the state where the knowledge would grow back if it was deleted from your mind.
LW has a higher bar to believing, but is it high enough? Once an idea breaches the walls, should it sweep all before it, assisted by the meta-idea of taking ideas seriously?
Also relevant, an old comment of mine.
"Don't be gullible" itself has gotchas. If I adjust my skepticism-meter too far upward, then manufactured controversy can seem like real controversy to me -- this fact was used by tobacco companies in the 1960's to sway public opinion and continues to be used today by many other groups. Just because some seemingly-smart people seem to be having a debate about a subject does not mean that the truth is beyond your understanding.
I think the better advice would be "There is no easy path to find the truth." That is, there is no formula or template you can always follow to find the truth. Finding the truth requires continuously challenging your beliefs and questioning authority.
I always liked the more alliterative formulation of that: "no royal road to rationality".