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

Comment author: math_viking 10 December 2016 09:12:00AM 4 points [-]

I thought contributors here tended to keep in mind ideas like Chesterton's Fence and "building institutions is hard." But I think it's important to recognize that just because people should have the right do something, doesn't mean it's good to encourage that thing. People shouldn't feel forced or trapped in unhappy marriages, but it's also not good for kids (particularly poor kids) and in some cases even the parents if we provide incentives to have lots of single parent homes.

Comment author: math_viking 09 December 2016 05:51:28AM 1 point [-]

Would this be a sort of reverse privileging the hypothesis? We can only weigh probabilities for theories that have been brought to our attention.

Comment author: math_viking 08 December 2016 06:40:52AM 2 points [-]

The list of controls in the "prison reduces lifespan" study seems a little on the short side--race, age, gender, education, and the crime. It's fine if that's all that was available, but if you had some other data as well, I would expect to see the life span reduction reduced as well. Particularly if the major causes of death are homicide and drug overdose right after getting, a strong linear relationship between time spent in prison and life expectancy seems weird. I'm not sure how that would work, causally.

But mostly I agree with chron--you can't just completely ignore the possibility that the existence of prisons reduces crime.

Meetup : Austin Meetup

0 math_viking 04 November 2016 05:32AM

Discussion article for the meetup : Austin Meetup

WHEN: 07 November 2020 02:30:00PM (-0500)

WHERE: 4001 N Lamar Blvd, Austin, TX 78756

Discussion article for the meetup : Austin Meetup

Comment author: math_viking 04 March 2015 05:36:24AM 0 points [-]

This post strikes me as odd.

The "insufficient quantity" definition matches both what I have seen in economics textbooks, and the common definition of the word. The fact that then choices must be made follows from this definition. If the standard conception follows from your definition, they are equivalent, and I would use the one that matches standard terminology. If it doesn't, I would say that makes the first preferable (as the relevant fact is derived from the definition).

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 24 February 2015 10:20:30AM *  1 point [-]

I would expect no one's claims to be flawless, but even if OP claimed the sky is green, claiming that he is wrong because he's not a physicist is still wrong.

For some value of wrong. But the claim that the Fed is literally printing money js also wrong, for some value of wrong. Its like youre saying one side in the discussion deserves charity, and the other doesn't.

Random Commentator's comment was not "You are not an economist, so you are wrong", it was "Are you an economist?". That can .be read as a legitimate concern about understanding the topic.

Jumping on people for making "obvious fallacies" that actually arent explicitly stated at all , is probably a reflection of bias on the part of the jump-.er.

(The Ancient Geeks Law: Any comment by anybody in any discussion will look like an obvious fallacy under a sufficiently uncharitable interpretation)

and their responses arent completely invalidThey seem pretty much like obvious examples of fallacies to me

....when read without the charity you are extending to the OPs claims.

.Your suggestions are possible ways to segue from what OP said into a better discussion, but the replies quoted or paraphrased above aren't conducive to such a discussion.

What does that mean? Maybe you have decided that even if charity is extended, or middle ground sought, nothing good will come of it. But have you tested that, or is it all in your head?

Comment author: math_viking 25 February 2015 04:15:28AM 0 points [-]

In the paraphrased or hypothetical exchanges above, OP at least made a claim that could be evaluated, and the other commenters dismissed even the possibility that they had anything worthwhile to say for pretty poor reasons. They didn't make any actual argument to give any charity to. "What experience do you have with economics?" and "what solutions do you propose?" are perfectly valid questions, but the other commenters follow-up doesn't continue the discussion, it seeks to end it.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 February 2015 12:33:51PM 1 point [-]

What does that mean? I would expect no one's claims to be flawless, but even if OP claimed the sky is green, claiming that he is wrong because he's not a physicist is still wrong.

Let's say you debate with multiple people "Why is the sky blue and not green"?
(a) A philosopher
(b) A linguist
(c) A physicist
(d) A five year old child

All those debates are different. It's very useful to ask at the beginning of the debate where the other person is common from when you want to target arguments.

Comment author: math_viking 25 February 2015 02:42:58AM 1 point [-]

Sure, but I think the follow-up responses make it clear the other commenter isn't looking for a real discussion.

Comment author: math_viking 24 February 2015 06:53:00AM 0 points [-]

I think these examples represent different sorts of fallacies. In the first, the person is making a variant on appeal to authority. In the latter, it's more like the Nirvana fallacy.

However, in either case the commenter doesn't seem worth arguing with. Especially if it's a random person on the internet.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 23 February 2015 11:15:42AM *  7 points [-]

In both cases, your opponents have points, up to a point.

  1. You need some sort of justification for the claim, even if it is not personal authority. In particular, if you are actual talking about quantitative easing, that is something much more complex than literally printing money.

  2. There's no actual point to saying that something isn't working, unless you have something better in mind. Consider the many people who believe that the whole of society is horribly broken.

Since your claims arent flawless, and their responses arent completely invalid, one thing you could do is pretend they made better versions.

  1. OK, I do need to back that up. Well, most economists believe...

  2. Ok, there is no point in just complaining. Maybe the government could put together a panel of experts to come up with alternatives.

Comment author: math_viking 24 February 2015 06:52:48AM 2 points [-]

Since your claims arent flawless,

What does that mean? I would expect no one's claims to be flawless, but even if OP claimed the sky is green, claiming that he is wrong because he's not a physicist is still wrong.

and their responses arent completely invalid

They seem pretty much like obvious examples of fallacies to me.

Your suggestions are possible ways to segue from what OP said into a better discussion, but the replies quoted or paraphrased above aren't conducive to such a discussion.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 February 2015 05:00:05AM 1 point [-]

Wheel of Time-style shields

Ugh, stilling. What a horrible idea that was.

Comment author: math_viking 21 February 2015 07:29:28AM 2 points [-]

You mean from the author/story/reader perspective, or in-universe?

View more: Next