Do you really find the “errors” you comment on incredible?
In the sense of ‘nearly unable to believe them’? Yes. I am flabbergasted that rudimentary errors are made by people with a reputation for great intelligence.
In this post, on this topic alone, Eliezer presumed that: 1) the prototype model is correct, 2) that robins are closer to the prototype than ducks, 3) the reason people thought a disease transfer would be more likely from robins to ducks was because of this, 4) the same pattern applies generally, and 5) that is also because of how we reason from generalities to specifics. All of these things are assumptions, none of which were given even the sketchiest support within this post.
He also said some things which were simply wrong.
Quite a lot of people here seem to be giving Our Hosts so much benefit of the doubt that they’re filling in holes in their arguments for them. I mean, really, what is it with you people? The point is to overcome biases, not wallow in them.
In the sense of ‘nearly unable to believe them’? Yes. I am flabbergasted that rudimentary errors are made by people with a reputation for great intelligence.
In this post, on this topic alone, Eliezer presumed that: 1) the prototype model is correct, 2) that robins are closer to the prototype than ducks, 3) the reason people thought a disease transfer would be more likely from robins to ducks was because of this, 4) the same pattern applies generally, and 5) that is also because of how we reason from generalities to specifics. All of these things are assumptions, none of which were given even the sketchiest support within this post.
He also said some things which were simply wrong.
Quite a lot of people here seem to be giving Our Hosts so much benefit of the doubt that they’re filling in holes in their arguments for them. I mean, really, what is it with you people? The point is to overcome biases, not wallow in them.