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.

cousin_it comments on Typical Sneer Fallacy - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: calef 01 September 2015 03:13AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (44)

Comments (44)

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

Comment author: buybuydandavis 01 September 2015 03:58:19AM 6 points [-]

I suspect the anecdote about Eliezer only sidetracks your readers.

Typical Sneer Fallacy: When you ignore or are offended by criticism because you've mistakenly identified it as coming purely from sneer.

Hence the problem with sneer in actual criticism. Not that I'm opposed to sneering. Far from it. But you'd better be making solid points while you sneer. If you make a bunch of half ass points just to sneer, don't expect people to dig your one diamond out of that pile of crap. They will look elsewhere for criticism, if they're interested in it at all. And quite reasonably so.

EY writes:

But the thought that su3su2su1 could just walk through finding errors in every chapter is laughable, and since he's clearly making up most of it, you shouldn't be surprised that he's making up all of it. If somebody started posting a list of science errors by Scott Aaronson or Scott Alexander purporting to find errors in every post, I wouldn't expect to find even a single real one mixed in.

Yep. Don't expect to find diamonds in a pile of crap. Expect to find more crap.

Comment author: cousin_it 01 September 2015 05:06:07PM *  10 points [-]

For what it's worth, I don't think su3su2u1's reviews were a pile of crap. I think they pointed out many real problems, not just with the individual details, but with the way HPMOR misrepresents scientific thinking as a whole. Here's an example (Ch. 96) where he just couldn't take it anymore:

Hiding from Death’s shadow is not defeating Death itself. The Resurrection Stone couldn’t really bring anyone back. The Elder Wand couldn’t protect you from old age.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THE RESURRECTION STONE CAN’T BRING ANYONE BACK? HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN IT?

Step 1- assume that the resurrection stone doesn’t work because you can’t magically bring back the dead

Step 2- decide you want to magically resurrect the dead

Step 3- never revisit step 1.

SCIENCE!

GO INVESTIGATE THE DOORWAY TO THE AFTERLIFE! GO TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE RESURRECTION STONE! DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH! "I’m going to resurrect the dead by thinking really hard about how much death sucks and doing nothing else.“

I wonder if Eliezer would consider that legitimate criticism?

Comment author: Vaniver 02 September 2015 05:02:27PM 2 points [-]

I think they pointed out many real problems, not just with the individual details, but with the way HPMOR misrepresents scientific thinking as a whole.

So, I think su3su2u1's strongest point is that the "Slytherin! Just kidding, Ravenclaw!" applies just as well to the story as it does to Harry; you might think it's about the application of science to magic, Harry thinks it's about the application of science to magic, but it's really not; it's about rationality, and the methods of rationality. As one of Eliezer's recent Facebook updates puts it:

In retrospect, one of the literary problems I ran into with Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is that there was no clear signal until the final chapter of what the story was about.

And much of this is a meta-point, rather than explicit text: Harry, little professor that he is, isn't good enough at rationality to avoid shooting himself in the foot, because knowing the concepts isn't the same as living the methodology.

(I suspect that Eliezer agrees with a sanitized version of this criticism. To clarify, if I recall correctly, su3su2u1 identifies Yudkowsky as author as also being Slytherin, which seems to me to be its own discussion that could get prickly.)

Comment author: cousin_it 02 September 2015 06:44:02PM *  3 points [-]

Eliezer is certainly more Gryffindor/Slytherin than Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff, and so is HPMOR Harry :-)

I agree that the story was intended to be about rationality (and also science, judging from the tons of science references). What it actually ends up being about is another question. To me the main theme of HPMOR is examining the hero stereotype, and it does such a great job that I can forgive its other flaws.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit