Er, do you have an issue with any of the arguments, rather than with Eliezer or the karma system? The only critique I can see above is the exact objection that's discussed in the "particular proof" post, and you're not presenting any argument against the analysis there.
I can't claim that the karma here is unbiased, but one pattern I can point to is that LW contrarians who engage with particular objections get upvoted more than contrarians who just reiterate conclusions. I've pointed you to a specific argument that in rationally making important d...
That's lovely and all. But how is it that my question got voted down and this nothing response got voted up?
Is it because I refer to people in cryostasis as corpse popsicles?
Well, the "nothing response" had links, and included actual facts.
As a general rule of thumb, in any online forum that uses a karma system, remarks which are polite and well written are more likely to be voted up. Remarks which are insulting or seem to be quickly typed up with little thought are more likely to be downvoted. Now, there's also a general trend that comments ...
with no large scale tests behind your claims then this is a matter of faith not science.
There is a relatively concise rebuttal of this statement in "demands for particular proof", which I quote:
"Demanding that cryonicists produce a successful revival before you'll credit the possibility of cryonics, is logically rude; specifically, it is a demand for particular proof.
A successful cryonics revival performed with modern-day technology is not a piece of evidence you could possibly expect modern cryonicists to provide, even given that the pro...
First, I don't think anyone's welcomed you to Less Wrong yet. It looks from your comments like you've been a lurker for a while?
Secondly, we do take these questions pretty seriously; it's just that we think that the best answer, based on the evidence available, is at least cautious optimism about cryonic revival (given some advances in technology well within the limits of possibility). See for instance ciphergoth's investigation of critiques for a discussion of this.
...How in the world can you assign any value to that proposal? There is a total lack of evid
You have, as has been pointed out, failed to understand the purpose of my comment. You will notice I never stated anything about this paper merely some basic guidelines to follow for determining if the paper is worth the effort to read, if one doesn't have significant knowledge of the field within which the paper was written.
I apologize if my purpose was not clear, but your comment is completely irrelevant and misguided.
EDIT: This is not an evaluation of the particular paper in question merely some general evaluation guidelines which are useful.
Drop dead easy way to evaluate the paper without reading it: (Not a standard to live by but it works)
1.) look up the authors if they are professors or experts great if its a nobody or a student ignore and discard or take with a grain of salt
2.) was the paper published and where (if on arxiv BEWARE it takes really no skill to get your work posted there anyone can do it)
Criteria: If paper written by respectable authorities or ones w...
"On one hand, Eliezer writes extremely good explanations. I'm learning from his style a lot."
Yeah, but they are rather verbose he tends to use 5 words when 2 would do.
"On the other hand, many people have pointed out that he doesn't publish novel rigorous results, which kinda detracts from the aura."
If you want to be in science this is a big issue unless your trying to pull a Wolfram and we all know how that turned out.
"On the third hand, he often finds and corrects non-obvious mathematical mistakes made by other people, including m...
Oh I get it. I would make the same point either way especially when the idea comes from a non math person. Whenever a non math person says this kind of thing it should make anyone who has done their due diligence cringe.
If you can't do the math so for the physics if partial differential equations are beyond you then you shouldn't be talking about physics. There are many fields where knowing the "drop-dead" math is not sufficient to qualify one to talk about it.
Now I know you will all vote me down, I am rocking the boat.
Ok, I have to be honest this entire idea makes me cringe, it seems a bit to much like a cheap get out of learning the math idea. Maybe I am biased because I actually am a mathematician but these kind of ideas I think are dangerous since you take away an important bar of admission to fields like physics. If you don't understand why the math is an important bar of admission look at the google groups physics group.
To be honest I think someone would be better off spending their time learning calculus at minimum then trying to read this kind of general overview...
Why re-invent the wheel this has already been done if I understand correctly for example in a bit of a more specific case "Fundamental Formulas of Physics".