I don’t think Stuart’s test is particularly useful by itself, so don’t take this as me defending it. His post is also vague and short enough to allow for several interpretations.
That’s certainly true. I just think you can get a lot more information much faster directly examining how someone’s beliefs change in response to new evidence.
What do you mean by “directly examine”? What if you can’t interact with the person but want to determine whether reading their book is worthwhile for example? Using a few belief litmus tests could be a great way to prevent wasting your time. There are other similar situations.
If there’s anything good about a belief litmus test, it’s that it’s simpler to apply than anything else. Probing someone’s belief structure might take a lot of time, and might be socially unacceptable in certain situations. It might not be easy to assess why a person fails to update, as they might have other conflicting beliefs you’re not aware of. Like any test, there will be false positives and false negatives. I think it’s a matter personal preference how many you’re willing to accept, and depends on how much effort you’re willing to put into testing.
Theism is often a default test of irrationality on Less Wrong, but I propose that global warming denial would make a much better candidate.
A default test, not the default test. I think we’re both nitpicking here and it’s pretty pointless.
I sort of feel like the determination that theism is irrational and it’s role as the Plimsoll line for participating at Less Wrong is pretty central to the brand.
Please define Plimsoll line. Is there a reason you didn’t use a more readily understandable word? I’ve seen theists stepping out of the closet and being upvoted here. It’s just when they come here with the default arguments we’ve seen a million times that they get downvoted to oblivion.
I don’t think Stuart’s test is particularly useful by itself, so don’t take this as me defending it. His post is also vague and short enough to allow for several interpretations.
What do you mean by “directly examine”? What if you can’t interact with the person but want to determine whether reading their book is worthwhile for example? Using a few belief litmus tests could be a great way to prevent wasting your time. There are other similar situations.
If there’s anything good about a belief litmus test, it’s that it’s simpler to apply than anything else. Probing someone’s belief structure might take a lot of time, and might be socially unacceptable in certain situations. It might not be easy to assess why a person fails to update, as they might have other conflicting beliefs you’re not aware of. Like any test, there will be false positives and false negatives. I think it’s a matter personal preference how many you’re willing to accept, and depends on how much effort you’re willing to put into testing.
A default test, not the default test. I think we’re both nitpicking here and it’s pretty pointless.
Please define Plimsoll line. Is there a reason you didn’t use a more readily understandable word? I’ve seen theists stepping out of the closet and being upvoted here. It’s just when they come here with the default arguments we’ve seen a million times that they get downvoted to oblivion.