Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 21 April 2009 01:15:04AM 1 point [-]

This isn't about choosing to lose. It's more about exploration vs. exploitation. If you always use the strategy you currently think is the best, then you won't get the information you need to improve.

Comment author: Mulciber 21 April 2009 02:36:46AM 1 point [-]

That seems contradictory. If you actually thought that always using one strategy would have this obvious disadvantage over another course of action, then doing so would by definition not be "the strategy you currently think is best."

Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 07:54:09PM 12 points [-]

It sounds as though you're viewing the debate as a chance to test your own abilities at improvisational performance. That's the wrong goal. Your goal should be to win.

"The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him. More than anything, you must be thinking of carrying your movement through to cutting him."

By increasing the challenge the way you suggest, you may very well be acting rationally toward the goal of testing yourself, but you're not doing all you can to cut the opponent. To rationally pursue winning the debate, there's no excuse for not doing your research.

In choosing not to try for that, you'll end up sending the message that rationalists don't play to win. You and I know this isn't quite accurate -- what you're doing is more like a rationalist choosing to lose a board game, because that served some other, real purpose of his -- but that is still how it will come across. Do you consider this to be acceptable?

In response to Spreading the word?
Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 07:45:16AM 0 points [-]

I'm curious about why you asked the second question. It seems obvious that "the word" you're talking about is human rationality, that being the whole focus of this community. So why ask people what the word you're asking about is? Is there something more subtle going on here?

In response to Spreading the word?
Comment author: Alicorn 19 April 2009 07:51:49PM 4 points [-]

I don't know if "spread the word about rationalism" is itself a rational edict, but "tell people about fun sites that may interest them" is an Internet edict. Today I sent a link here to a former professor, for instance.

Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 05:40:57AM 0 points [-]

In that case, would it be a good goal to make this site more fun, independent of the focus on rationality? That way people would recommend it to each other more so the rationality information would be more effective.

In response to Spreading the word?
Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 05:39:00AM 1 point [-]

I think works of fiction are the most effective way of spreading the word (logic and rationality). Personally, if it hadn't been for being exposed to rationalism from science fiction at an early age, I doubt I'd have ever come to this site.

Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 05:09:07AM 1 point [-]

"To understand the secret laws and relations of those high faculties of thought by which all beyond the merely perceptive knowledge of the world and of ourselves is attained or matures, is an object which does not stand in need of commendation to a rational mind."

-George Boole

Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 04:19:18AM 1 point [-]

"It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want."

-Spock

Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 04:18:59AM 7 points [-]

"Dear is Plato, dearer still is truth."

-Aristotle

Comment author: Mulciber 20 April 2009 04:12:32AM -1 points [-]

"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting."

-Spock

View more: Prev | Next