Consider, for example, an alternate universe where the great rationalist Zainab Al-Arabi runs a forum she named Not As Misguided, where she advocated, among other things, that the Universe is obviously shaped like the Poincaré dodecahedral space, even though it has never been tested, and many other shapes fit the data just as well. The forum participants, NAMers, few of whom have the necessary background in the area, nevertheless engage in an occasional heated debate about the right shape of the Universe, frequently referring to ZAA’s other teachings for justification.
How is this relevant? Because you think talking about Eliezer and someone else who is wrong in the same comment will make Eliezer look worse?
I assume the comment intended to provide an illustrative example of group thinking based on a contentious physical hypothesis at which the LWers can look from the outside.
How is this relevant? Because you think talking about Eliezer and someone else who is wrong in the same comment will make Eliezer look worse?
I assume the comment intended to provide an illustrative example of group thinking based on a contentious physical hypothesis at which the LWers can look from the outside.
woosh :(
Because the reason the MWI is discussed here has nothing to do with rationality.