Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: kialo 03 February 2018 01:13:50PM 0 points [-]

An argument might also be deductive in nature and might very well not need sources. In other cases there are claims where sources might not add anything to a claims veracity/relevance, e.g. sources to pro homeopathy sites. It's the what are good sources problem...

Kialo's aim is to have viewpoint diversity and to also engage with the bad claims, which indeed might be very popular.

You are able to switch between perspectives and see how different people reason and vote the claims. We will release persona tagging to show aggregates of this. The avg being shown today isn't ideal.

We'd agree, that we still have to improve the displaying of the "results" of a discussion. One step at a time, currently we are improving the "capturing" of discussions and are revamping the whole suggestion system, to allow for better bidirectional communication: https://support.kialo.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003791445-Suggesting-Claims

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 February 2018 10:34:36PM 0 points [-]

In world-class debating, sources don't matter and as a result what side of a topic a team gets at a debating tournament usually doesn't define whether the team loses or wins.

Grounding in empirical reality is important to getting policy decisions right.

Comment author: LessWrong 28 January 2018 10:49:55PM *  13 points [-]

Old site love thread.

Just curious how many people like, and possibly even prefer, the old site.

I'd also like to know if anyone else has terrible experience with site redesigns. They always, for some reason, end up terrible. Likelyhood of bias: 60%.

Comment author: ChristianKl 29 January 2018 04:12:29PM 2 points [-]

It seems like a personal message sent to me on the new website got lost.

At the beginning, the speed was too low but now it's a lot better.

Getting notifcation to replies to your post doesn't yet work and I think that's the last thing that has to be done to make the new website a clear improvement above the existing version.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 January 2018 09:39:16PM 0 points [-]

Most of the comments provide arguments without referencing any sources to back up their claims. The result is that this system filters for popular arguments instead of filtering for arguments that can be well supported by sources.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 January 2018 09:00:15PM 0 points [-]

Your landing page doesn't show me any current discussion the way Reddit or Quora do. I think that's likely a bad decision.

Comment author: ChristianKl 29 December 2017 06:34:07PM 0 points [-]

Oliver Habryka (who works on programming LW2 at the moment) taught rationality to other students at his school a while back based on CFAR style ideas which at the time meant a lot of calibration and Fermi estimates.

The same would also make sense with the more recent CFAR material for anyone who took the CFAR course.

Comment author: curi 03 December 2017 07:57:18PM *  0 points [-]

That aspect of the timeline actually is public information, you just don't know it. Again you've made a false factual claim (about what is or isn't public info).

You are clinging to a false narrative from a position of ignorance, while still trying to attack me (now I suck at thinking in a fact based way, apparently because I factually corrected you) rather than reconsidering anything.

I've told you what happened. You don't believe me and started making up factually false claims to fit your biases, which aren't going anywhere when corrected. You think someone like David Deutsch couldn't possibly like and value my philosophical thinking all that much. You're mistaken.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 December 2017 12:41:19PM 0 points [-]

You said you can't deduce something. This means that there's a puzzle that you couldn't solve and it's not a hard problem to solve.

Comment author: curi 03 December 2017 07:38:10PM *  0 points [-]

That situation today doesn't prevent you from being ignorant of things like timelines. Your claim that "you provided a valuable service to him by organising an online forum as a volunteer and as a result he saw you as a friend who got to read his draft and he listened to your feedback on his draft" is factually false. I didn't run or own those forums at the time. I did not in fact get to read "his draft" (falsely singular) due to running a forum.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're making up false stories.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2017 07:52:56PM 0 points [-]

You are right that I don't know about the timeline given that it's not public information and this can lead to getting details wrong. The fact that you are unable to think of what I refer to still suggests that your abilities to think in a fact based way about this aren't good.

Comment author: curi 03 December 2017 07:24:10PM *  0 points [-]

There literally is such a statement as the one you deny exists: he put the word "especially" before my name. He also told me directly. You are being dishonest and biased.

Your comments about organizing a forum, etc, are also factually false. You don't know what you're talking about and should stop making false claims.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2017 07:35:08PM *  0 points [-]

You wrote on your website:

I made and own the website and discussion group for the book. David is a founder of Taking Children Seriously (TCS) and Autonomy Respecting Relationships (ARR). I own the dicussion groups for both of those, too.

That's your own presenation of your relationship with him.

Comment author: curi 03 December 2017 06:50:15PM *  0 points [-]

You seem to be implying I'm a liar while focusing on making factual claims in a intentionally biased way (you just saw, but omitted, relevant information b/c it doesn't help "your side", which is to attack me).

Your framing here is as dishonest, hostile, and unfair as usual: I did not claim to be a coauthor.

You are trying to attack informality as something bad or inferior, and trying to deny my status as a professional colleague of Deutsch who was involved with the book in a serious way. You are, despite the vagueness and hedging, factually mistaken about what you're suggesting. Being a PhD student under Deutsch would have been far worse – much less attention, involvement, etc. But you are dishonestly trying to confuse the issues by switching btwn arguing about formality itself (who cares? but you're using it as a proxy for other things) and actually talking about things that matter (quality, level of involvement, etc).

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2017 07:18:59PM 0 points [-]

I made a statement that the relationship is informal and back up my claim. If you get offended by me simply saying things that are true, that's not a good basis to have a conversation about philosophic matters.

If David Deutsch would have decided to hire you as an editor, that's would be a clear sign that he values your expertise enough to pay for it. The information that you provided shows that you provided a valuable service to him by organising an online forum as a volunteer and as a result he saw you as a friend who got to read his draft and he listened to your feedback on his draft. You seem to think that the fact that you spent the most time on providing feedback makes you the most important editor of it, but there's no statement of David Deutsch himself in the acknowledgement section that suggests that he thinks the same way.

Comment author: curi 03 December 2017 04:16:18PM *  0 points [-]

I didn't correspond with David Deutsch in an "informal way" as you mean it. For example, I was the most important editor of BoI (other than DD ofc).

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2017 06:42:36PM 0 points [-]

You don't seem to be a formal coauthor of the book, so your relationship is informal in a way that a Phd supervision isn't. The book also doesn't list you as editor but under "friends or colleagues" while he does mention that he does have a relationship with someone he calls copy-editor.

View more: Next