I don’t think this makes much sense, honestly. Taleb isn’t even a LW rationalist, so that’s the first reason to doubt that this quote alone could imply something of great importance about the essence of this site.
Is the Scientist in Eliezer’s recent anti-Empiricism dialogue not using reason and logic? Are Traditional Rationality and Science, which are spoken of as ultimately helpful but fundamentally incomplete in many parts of the Sequences (1, 2, 3, 4) having trouble because its practitioners are doing “empiricism without logic”? Because they can’t process or make sense of observations? Are they not using reason? If that were so, how on Earth would we have achieved the tremendous amount of pre-LW rationalism advances in science, engineering, and our understanding of the outside world?
As a general matter, it seems the biggest and most common problem human beings face in trying to understand the world is not how to change their credence in a particular thesis when they face new evidence, but more so how to identify what broad frames and theories to even think about in the first place, i.e., what to update, instead of how. Put differently, it is where to place to good use the limited amount of resources (time, attention, mental energy) we have to maximize the chance of stumbling upon something useful.
I don’t think this makes much sense, honestly. Taleb isn’t even a LW rationalist, so that’s the first reason to doubt that this quote alone could imply something of great importance about the essence of this site.
Is the Scientist in Eliezer’s recent anti-Empiricism dialogue not using reason and logic? Are Traditional Rationality and Science, which are spoken of as ultimately helpful but fundamentally incomplete in many parts of the Sequences (1, 2, 3, 4) having trouble because its practitioners are doing “empiricism without logic”? Because they can’t process or make sense of observations? Are they not using reason? If that were so, how on Earth would we have achieved the tremendous amount of pre-LW rationalism advances in science, engineering, and our understanding of the outside world?
I absolutely disagree with the notion that LW rationalism is about using logic to process observations. On the contrary, it is about using Bayesianism to figure out what hypotheses are even worth taking seriously in the first place, keeping multiple working theories in mind, and ultimately converging to correct beliefs faster than science [1] (because the social rules of traditional scientific institutions require far too much evidence than is needed to be individually convinced of the truth of a claim).
As a general matter, it seems the biggest and most common problem human beings face in trying to understand the world is not how to change their credence in a particular thesis when they face new evidence, but more so how to identify what broad frames and theories to even think about in the first place, i.e., what to update, instead of how. Put differently, it is where to place to good use the limited amount of resources (time, attention, mental energy) we have to maximize the chance of stumbling upon something useful.
One could make the case that this hasn’t really happened in practice, but if so, it is probably because “the project of thinking more clearly has largely fallen by the wayside, and that we never did that great of a job at it anyways”.