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

Comment author: username2 24 November 2017 10:46:25AM 1 point [-]

B+ Too brief.

Comment author: curi 14 November 2017 03:28:53AM *  0 points [-]

the moderators here actually just threatened my friend with a ban for posting a link to one of my articles about our philosophical disagreements, and deleted the thread. it was this one about empiricism and instrumentalism (not quite induction, but closely related): http://curi.us/2067-empiricism-and-instrumentalism

the reason you have trouble applying reason is b/c u understand reason badly. it's easy if u understand it well enuf. the idea/action gap is a matter of flaws in the ideas – both having the wrong ideas and also having incomplete ideas. ideas are what you need. nothing but ideas can help/save you.

insight porn sucks because its ideas aren't good enough, and are designed to impress people with standard memes, not to be useful. it's a trap which you shouldn't mix up with real philosophy.

also you ask about posting an anti-induction article. i wrote a number of anti-induction arguments both on the forums and in slack, which have not been answered. i also gave references to more, which have not been answered. why should everything be repeated for each individual who comes along and doesn't want to read references?

repeating arguments for people unwilling to look at the literature is not productive. it takes so much effort to understand philosophy that the effort of doing some reading is table stakes. people who don't want to do that are unserious. and you only have to read until the first mistake, and then comment. and if you're wrong about that first mistake, you can look for the second one and also take the matter more seriously. and by the 5th incorrect mistake i expect your full attention.

the methodology disagreements need to come before the induction disagreement or we won't be discussing induction using the same rules of discussion.

and you ask me to define induction so we're on the same page. that's part of the problem. ppl are LW are not on the same page, and want to all be addressed individually – which is too much work, and anyway none of them take responsibility for finding the truth, they all just quit after a small amount of discussion, as i expect you to as well. if you want to learn, join FI ( http://fallibleideas.com/discussion-info ) and ask and ppl will help you. or read. http://fallibleideas.com/books or look through the discussions i already had here (both recently and years ago) and answer the points that others did not. you can find logs of the slack chats at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/info

more broadly, inductivists vary so much – and most barely know anything about induction. so there's no really short one-size-fits-all way to address the issue. it's a big topic. hence lots of important arguments – and, perhaps more importantly, extensive explanation of the alternative.

if you really want an anti-induction article, one of the best things you could do, first, is give me a pro-induction article you endorse, and stand behind, and take responsibility for. shouldn't that come first? but when i asked for canonical LW material that would be appropriate to respond to, and that anyone would care if it was mistaken ... i was flamed. lay out your positive claims in a serious way – stick your neck out as CR has – before asking for refutation of your unspecified positive claims.

and no i don't give ideas probabilities. https://yesornophilosophy.com

Comment author: username2 14 November 2017 11:42:29AM 0 points [-]

Please keep posting here. Your powers of persuasion are amazing.

Comment author: Elo 02 November 2017 08:39:48PM 1 point [-]

I can't speak for 2.0 but 1.0 still has traffic.

Comment author: username2 10 November 2017 01:49:58PM 1 point [-]

Sorry, I used the ambiguous term "traffic", meant "amount of new discussion/comments" rather than web traffic. were it not for curi's recent flurry there would almost be nothing here.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 November 2017 12:37:23AM 1 point [-]

I don't think any other method of knowledge creation is known, other than evolution.

The scientific method doesn't look much like evolution to me. At a simpler level, things like observation and experimentation don't look like it, either.

Comment author: username2 10 November 2017 01:23:40PM 0 points [-]

I went down the rabbit hole of your ensuing discussion and it seems to have broken LW, but didn't look like you were very convinced yet. Thanks for taking one for the team.

Comment author: Elo 02 November 2017 04:39:44AM 1 point [-]

we are in the process of transitioning. The new one is missing some features and is being iterated on every day. EY is writing there, as are a few others. www.lesserwrong.com

It will eventually replace this site but not before functionality is over there.

Comment author: username2 02 November 2017 10:59:45AM 2 points [-]

Another take: This site is dead with practically no traffic. LW2.0 has various issues and missing features: from a development team perspective it's still in a lengthy beta phase but practically speaking and from a general user viewpoint it can be considered to have fully replaced this site.

Comment author: username2 27 October 2017 09:25:30AM 1 point [-]

You could also simply continue working on the review: you are clearly motivated to explore these issues deeper so why not start fleshing out the paper?

Note that I said "continue" rather than start. The barrier is often not the ideas themselves but getting it written in something approaching a complete paper. this is still the issue for me and I have 50+ peer reviewed papers in the past 20 years (although not in this field).

Comment author: Jiro 11 October 2017 07:35:54PM *  0 points [-]

Looks like LW 2.0 is using a 20px font size, and 25px line height, which is in range of what is recommended.

Is "what was recommended" similar to "mistakes were made"? It blames it on someone else, while leaving the "someone else" unnamed.

Existing recommendations about text size (and particularly, about not fitting too much text on a line) do not consider that Lesswrong has a different usage pattern than most sites. There are references dating back to 1971, but I can't figure out if any scientific studies were actually conducted at the time to determine this, and at any rate, printed text is not the web.

Also, beware of using some recommendation just because it's easy to measure.

This is basically breaking the site in order to fit "recommendations". LW 2.0 is bad, and everyone involved should feel bad. It is fundamentally designed around a bad idea.

In response to comment by Jiro on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: username2 12 October 2017 09:41:09AM 0 points [-]

The recommendation by "someone else" is anything but anonymous, adamzerner's comment quotes and links directly from Matthew Butterick, author of the online book that provides said guidance (and also explicitly makes the point about print vs. online).

While I fully agree with you about strong distaste for the visual design of LW2 (at least using default display settings in the current beta) you have failed to make a valid argument here.

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: username2 06 October 2017 01:15:52PM 0 points [-]

I can't get a rss feed specifically for featured posts right now can I ?

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: username2 03 October 2017 11:35:47AM 0 points [-]

My vision is not great and I simply cannot see the difference between quoted text and normal text in comments.

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: username2 02 October 2017 12:20:44PM 8 points [-]

I find it very difficult to find and follow discussions on the new site. The content is very slow to load for me (on various devices) and I've given up rather than trying to work my way down.

The scoring system doesn't make sense to me but this may just be a matter of getting used to it / users settling into some kind of routine. Anyway easy enough for me to select "most recent" and squint past the scores based on other users' ratings for now.

I'm also embarrassed by the term "Sunshine Regiment". I can see what you're trying to do but it has an incredibly strong negative impact on me whenever I see it.

View more: Next