= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
(I think this may have came across a bit more confrontational than was optimal)
((Also, on that note, mirefek, if I came across as more confrontational than seemed appropriate, apologies.))
I see. It seemed to me that it was about the experimental method which did not fit to a mathematical statement. I understand the possibility of being mistaken. I was mistaken many times, I am not sure with some proofs and I know some persuasive fake proofs... Despite this, I am not very convinced that I should do such things with my probability estimates. After all, it is just an estimate. Moreover it is a bit self-referencing when the estimate uses a more complicated formula then the statement itself. If I say that I am 1-sure, that 1 is not 1/2, it is safe, isn't it? :-D Well, it does not matter :-) I think that I got the point, "I know that I know nothing" is a well known quote.
I think that I got the point, "I know that I know nothing" is a well known quote.
It's actually a somewhat different point he's trying to make (it's spaced out over several blogposts) - the idea is not to say "all knowledge is fallible." You should be very confident in math proofs that have been well vetted. It's useful to have a sense of how certain your knowledge is. (like, could you make 100 similar statements without being wrong once? 1,000? 10,000?)
(i.e. "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a probability, not a certainty, and "Ghosts could be real" is a probability, not a certainty, but they are very different probabilities.)
If you're interested, I do recommend the sequences in more detail - a lot of their points build on each other. (For example, there are multiple other posts that argue about what it's useful to think in probabilities, and how to apply that to other things).
Hi, I am a mathematician and I guess most mathematicians would not agree with this. I am quite new here and I am looking forward to reactions of rationalists :-)
I, personally, distinguish "real world" and "mathematical world". In real world, I could be persuaded that 2+2=3 by experience. There is no way to persuade me that 2+2=3 in mathematical world unless somebody shows me a proof of it. But I already have a proof of 2+2=4, so it would lead into great reform of mathematics, similar to the reform after Russel paradox. Just empirical experience would definitely not suffice. The example of 2+2=4 looks weird because the statement holds in both "worlds" but there are other paradoxes which demonstrate the difference better.
For example, there is so called Banach-Tarski paradox, (see Wikipedia). It is proven (by set theory) that a solid ball can be divided into finitely many parts and then two another balls of the same size as the original one can be composed from the pieces. It is a physical nonsense, mass is not preserved. Yet, there is a proof... What can we do with that? Do we say that physics is right and mathematics is wrong?
Reasonable explanation: The physical interpretation of the mathematical theorem is just oversimplified. This part of mathematics does not fit to this part of physics. The false statement about physics is just different from the true mathematical statement.
But the Banach-Tarski paradox has no physical equivalent. We can not test it empirically, we can just believe the proof. This is probably what I would think if my experiences showed me that 2+2=3. It would appear that in our real mysterious world just 2+2=3 but in mathematical world, which was designed to be simple and reasonable, still 2+2=4.
Similarly, we can guess whether and how the physical universe is curved, yet the Euclidean space will be straight and infinite by definition, no matter what we will experience.
Sure, it can be argued that if mathematics does not reflect the real world then it is useless. Well, set theory is a base for almost all math fields. Even though the particular result called Banach-Tarski paradox have no practical use, more complicated objects in the mathematical universe are used in physics well. Restriction to just "empirically testable" objects in mathematics is a counter-intuitive useless obstacle. In such view, there is no sixth Ackermann number or the twin prime conjecture has no meaning. I can barely imagine such mathematics.
I understand that you may want a simple way to handle theists but abandoning abstract mathematics (or calling it "false") is definitely not a wise one.
The point was less about the physical world applications of 2+2=4, and more about the fact that any belief you have is ultimately based on the evidence you've encountered. In the case of purely theoretical proofs, it's still based on your subjective experience of having read and understood the proofs.
Humans are sometimes literally insane (for example, not being able to tell that they're missing an arm). Also, even the best of us sometimes misunderstand or misremember things. So you need to leave probability mass for having misunderstood the proof in the first place.
(The followup to this post is this one: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mo/infinite_certainty/ which addresses this in some more detail)
Meetup : NY Solstice 2016 - The Story of Smallpox
Discussion article for the meetup : NY Solstice 2016 - The Story of Smallpox
Every winter, people across the US East Coast (and beyond!) travel to New York City, to celebrate humanity's triumph against the darkness. Come to sing songs, to connect with people from the rationality and secular communities, and (this particular year), to hear the complete story of smallpox, from its earliest appearances to its eventual eradication, and more. (Note: To pay for the venue, tickets are available at www.secularsolstice.com)
Discussion article for the meetup : NY Solstice 2016 - The Story of Smallpox
Is there an effective way for a layman to get serious feedback on scientific theories?
I have a weird theory about physics. I know that my theory will most likely be wrong, but I expect that some of its ideas could be useful and it will be an interesting learning experience even in the worst case. Due to the prevalence of crackpots on the internet, nobody will spare it a glance on physics forums because it is assumed out of hand that I am one of the crazy people (to be fair, the theory does sound pretty unusual).
If you are serious about it, consider paying a physicist to discuss it with you:
https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-for-autodidact-physicists
I work in theoretical physics, specifically quantum gravity. In my field, we all get them: the emails from amateur physicists who are convinced that they have solved a big problem, normally without understanding the problem in the first place. Like many of my colleagues, I would reply with advice, references and lecture notes. And, like my colleagues, I noticed that the effort was futile. The gap was too large; these were people who lacked even the basic knowledge to work in the area they wanted to contribute to. With a feeling of guilt, I stopped replying.
Then they came back into my life. I had graduated and moved to another job, then another. I’d had temporary contracts of between three months and five years. It normally works out somehow, but sometimes there’d be a gap between the end of one contract and the start of the next. This happened again last year. I have kids, and rent to pay, so I tried to think of creative ways to capitalise on 15 years of research experience.
As long as you have funding, quantum gravity is basic research at its finest. If not, it’s pretty much useless knowledge. Who, I wondered, could possibly need someone who knows the ins and outs of attempts to unify the forces and unravel the quantum behaviour of space-time? I thought of all the theories of everything in my inbox. And I put up a note on my blog offering physics consultation, including help with theory development: ‘Talk to a physicist. Call me on Skype. $50 per 20 minutes.’
In the spirit of quibbling over the 5% I disagreed with:
I recently started reading Rationality: From AI to Zombies (the compilation of the sequences into an eBook). It comes with a good introduction outlining some of the weaknesses of the sequences.
Overall I'm not sure it's as FUN to read the sequences in book form than in a mad archive binge link-splosion, but it's more convenient.
How did it go? It seems like it would create some unsettling ambiguity in the "happy" ending.
I did not end up using it, although I periodically stumble upon this again and still think it's a neat way of thinking
Even in spaces where truth seeking is valued, time is valuable as well. When I sit together with a bunch of rationalists and the discussion is about what to cook for dinner there no benefit to waiting very long and it's quite okay when someone makes a reasonable decision to cook in a cached way.
Agreed.
I think I should probably reverse my original statement to "where intelligence/creativity/truthseeking is important" (similar sentence but narrows it down the focus - group intelligence and creativity usually don't matter for picking food, unless several people care about getting unusual/interesting food and roughly agree with each other on what kind to get)
The metanorm of "figure out what norm to use" is still important. But I do still assert that "the 12 second rule is a norm that should be used much more often i.e. at all in most rationalist discussion spaces"
Deciding when to speak is an important topic, but I'm not sure whether this is a good norm. If you train the habit to always think before answering it's hard express your views in social contexts where other people don't play according to the norm. I myself have to train the ability to respond more quickly.
There an art of speaking when one has something to say that contributes but also being silent when silence would be more valuable because it allows other people to speak or simply to think more.
There's certainly important meta-norms of "figure out the right norm to use for the current situation", and this is not meant to be overwhelmingly conclusive. But some notes:
1) I recommend this specifically for spaces where truth seeking is shared value, or where collective intelligence/creativity is particularly important. I'd be surprised if it took root in other contexts and wouldn't recommend it there. Sometimes you are playing the game of "fun, interesting banter" or some-such (even within rationalist spaces) and then you'll be doing different things.
2) Remember, part of the norm is "when you see people begin to talk without giving themselves or others time to think, interrupt them and say 'Hey, can we each have a chance to think first so we don't all anchor on one idea?'". If you're in a group where truth seeking, collective intelligence or creativity is important (even a non-rationalist space), I think this serves as good practice for being quick and assertive as well as polite, all while also strengthening meta-norms of "truth seeking is important." If you're including this part, I'd be surprised if it dampened your ability to quickly express your ideas when the situation demands it.
(I added some clarification to the original post based on this)
But again, definitely use your judgement based on what kind of situation you're actually in.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Thanks for your good words about my insights on EA marketing, really appreciate it!
Regarding having InIn in the video, the goal is not to establish any sort of equivalence. In fact, it would be hard to compare the other organizations with each other as well. For instance, GiveWell has a huge budget and vastly more staff than any of the other organizations mentioned in the video. The goal is to give people information on various venues where they could get different types of information. For example, ACE is there for people who care about animal rights, and GWWC is there for people who want a community. InIn is there for people who want easy content to inform themselves about effective giving. This is why InIn is specifically discussed as a venue to get content, not recommendations on effective charities or things like that.
Also, please remember people's priors. This video is not aimed at EAs. The people who watch this video will not have any idea about the popularity of various organizations. InIn would get fine credit within the EA community if we had just produced the video without including InIn itself. The goal is to provide a broad audience with a variety of sources of information about effective giving. We included InIn because it provides some types of content - such as this video - that other orgs do not - as you say, they have a different target group :-)
Seconding resuf's comments: both that this is a pretty good, professional looking video, but also that it's another instance of you seeming to listen to some of the exact-letter-of-the-request when people ask you to stop or do things differently, without understanding the underlying reasons why people are upset.
And that this is especially important if your goal is to be a public-facing outreach organization.