Overview for Cogitus_Maximus

In response to comment by Cogitus_Maximus on [Link] You Have No Idea How Wrong You Are

Comment author: knb 23 July 2012 08:10:31AM * 7 points [-]

I'm new to the community so I appreciate your willingness to explain the poor reception this video got.

I suspect this was downvoted mainly because you posted a link without any kind of description. Even links posted in an Open Thread should have at least a one-sentence description of the link content. A discussion-level post should have a minimum of a short descriptive paragraph. That helps people determine if it is worth their time to click through.

you might be less critical if you'd watched the last 5 minutes of the video.

I did watch the last 5 minutes, mainly because you implied it would get better. In reality, he just makes these trivial arguments favoring acceptance of improved but still imperfect ideas, while still looking for future improvements (as though anyone expects absolute perfection and rejects non-perfect improvements). Arguing that we should prefer the term "less wrong" over "right" is based on a narrow semantic definition of "right" that nobody actually uses and is therefore worthless. It's like arguing that we should stop using the term "cold" to describe anything but absolute zero, and use "less hot" instead.

Permalink

In response to comment by knb on [Link] You Have No Idea How Wrong You Are

Comment author: Cogitus_Maximus 23 July 2012 04:10:02PM 5 points [-]

Thanks much for the feedback.

Permalink

In response to [Link] You Have No Idea How Wrong You Are

Comment author: knb 23 July 2012 05:45:38AM * 13 points [-]

This video seems pretty pointless. He makes the claim that historically, people have been wrong about essentially all of their beliefs. That seems wrong--most people's beliefs are things like "mountains are tall", "my knee hurts", or "there are fruit trees in this valley".

He also assumes that we are not in a "more privileged position with respect to the Truth". But obviously we are, at least to some extent. Someone who only only has access to the data they collected from the first day of an experiment knows less than someone who collects another day of results and can read the first person's notes.

Overall, there just isn't anything in the video that makes it worth watching, especially for people who spend time on LW.

Permalink

In response to comment by knb on [Link] You Have No Idea How Wrong You Are

Comment author: Cogitus_Maximus 23 July 2012 06:53:31AM * 0 points [-]

I'm new to the community so I appreciate your willingness to explain the poor reception this video got. That said I think the point you critique is still valid and that you might be less critical if you'd watched the last 5 minutes of the video. Are we in a "more privileged position"? Yes, and he acknowledges that towards the end. However, "more" is a relative term. In all likely-hood a thousand years from now scientists will look back and say we were less wrong than we had been in the past but still far more wrong than they will be. If with each new revolutionary thought or finding we think we've come to final truth we're likely to slow our efforts. However, if we can think of it instead as becoming less wrong we stay motivated to make the next step to becoming even less wrong. Either way I appear to have been misguaged the interests of the community and would appreciate any suggestions for further submissions. Is there a page on submission guidelines/protocol that I've missed?

Permalink

load more comments (2 replies)

In response to comment by NancyLebovitz on [link] Prepared to wait? New research challenges the idea that we favour small rewards now over bigger later

Comment author: Despard 20 July 2012 03:09:57PM 1 point [-]

It's definitely a good idea to be skeptical. There is definitely some badly-designed research out there, and some that shows less than it claims to. The best way to deal with that is to read the original papers and make sure the studies were adequately performed, although this doesn't entirely solve the issue (see: publication bias).

Permalink

In response to comment by Despard on [link] Prepared to wait? New research challenges the idea that we favour small rewards now over bigger later

Comment author: Cogitus_Maximus 21 July 2012 03:27:24AM * 5 points [-]

It would be really nice if studies had a sort of thoroughness check list at the top of the paper next to the abstract clearly stating sample size, sampling process, number of peer reviewers, study methodology(double-blind, panel etc), and any other relevant information to the papers validity. If some sort of crude standardization could even occur within specific fields it would make cross-study comparison much easier. Or what if papers could be published online in a format inviting public criticism and community concerns would be forced to be answered to by authors.