Don’t think Eliezer meant to say that the scientific method isn’t awesome for optimizing a truthful view of reality. If he did say that, he’s wrong. Is there a specific case you could make on why it’s not, because didn’t get that from the article you referred to.
Don’t understand your comment about having no opinion when you have no data. I’m reading it as 1) many people won’t dig for data and have strong opinions anyway and 2) obscurity can be used as a weapon to prevent you from forming an informed opinion. Does that describe your comment accurately?
For 1, not sure what the disadvantage you see here … okay ignorant opinions are bountiful. So we should join the club or they’ll …. what?
For 2, if the alternative is to form a strong a opinion without data because someone made it too much work for you to care that much, then they’ve manipulated you more than if you hold no opinion at all … what am I missing?
Don’t think Eliezer meant to say that the scientific method isn’t awesome for optimizing a truthful view of reality.
The scientific method has it’s uses, just as the court system has it’s uses. They both, however, rely on throwing out certain kinds of evidence. And one can’t always afford to ignore said evidence in practice.
For 1, not sure what the disadvantage you see here … okay ignorant opinions are bountiful. So we should join the club or they’ll …. what?
For policy on the basis of their wrong ideas.
For 2, if the alternative is to form a strong a opinion without data because someone made it too much work for you to care that much, then they’ve manipulated you more than if you hold no opinion at all … what am I missing?
I didn’t say one shouldn’t use any data. Simply that one doesn’t have to read the bill to form an opinion about it.
Here are some hints:
Didn’t read the holy book (either your own or the enemy’s religion). =/= having no data about it
Didn’t read the bill. =/= having no data about it
Read no articles from climate science journals. =/= having no data about it
Don’t think Eliezer meant to say that the scientific method isn’t awesome for optimizing a truthful view of reality. If he did say that, he’s wrong. Is there a specific case you could make on why it’s not, because didn’t get that from the article you referred to.
Don’t understand your comment about having no opinion when you have no data. I’m reading it as 1) many people won’t dig for data and have strong opinions anyway and 2) obscurity can be used as a weapon to prevent you from forming an informed opinion. Does that describe your comment accurately?
For 1, not sure what the disadvantage you see here … okay ignorant opinions are bountiful. So we should join the club or they’ll …. what? For 2, if the alternative is to form a strong a opinion without data because someone made it too much work for you to care that much, then they’ve manipulated you more than if you hold no opinion at all … what am I missing?
The scientific method has it’s uses, just as the court system has it’s uses. They both, however, rely on throwing out certain kinds of evidence. And one can’t always afford to ignore said evidence in practice.
For policy on the basis of their wrong ideas.
I didn’t say one shouldn’t use any data. Simply that one doesn’t have to read the bill to form an opinion about it.
Here are some hints:
Didn’t read the holy book (either your own or the enemy’s religion). =/= having no data about it
Didn’t read the bill. =/= having no data about it
Read no articles from climate science journals. =/= having no data about it
No, but what data I do have about it is likely to be filtered.
So? The point of the article is not that one should ignore filtered evidence, but that one should adjust for the filter.