It seems awfully convenient that Eliezer made all these claims, in the Sequences, that were definitely and unquestionably factual, and based on empirical findings; that he based his conclusions on them; that he described many of these claims as surprising, such that they shifted his views, and ought to shift ours (that is, the reader’s)… but then, when many (but how many? we don’t know, and haven’t checked) of the findings in question failed to replicate, now we decide that it’s okay if they’re “fake frameworks”.
Does it not seem to you like this is precisely the sort of attitude toward the truth that the Sequences go to heroic lengths to warn against?
(As for CFAR, that seems to me to be a rather poor example. As far as I’m aware, CFAR has never empirically validated their techniques in any serious way, and indeed stopped trying to do so a long time ago, after initial attempts at such validation failed.)
CFAR generally taught classes and then followed up with people. They didn’t do that in a scientifically rigorous manner and had no interest in collaborating with academics like Falk Lieder to run a rigorous inquiry but that doesn’t mean that their approach wasn’t empiric. There were plenty of classes that they had in the begining where they learned after doing them and looking at empiric feedback that they weren’t a bad idea.
Does it not seem to you like this is precisely the sort of attitude toward the truth that the Sequences go to heroic lengths to warn against?
You might argue that the view of the sequences is opposed to the one that’s expressed in “fake frameworks” but it still seems to me one that’s popular right now.
I don’t deny that there would be some value in someone going through and fact-checking all the sequences but at the same time I understand why that’s nobodies Hemming problem.
It seems awfully convenient that Eliezer made all these claims, in the Sequences, that were definitely and unquestionably factual, and based on empirical findings; that he based his conclusions on them; that he described many of these claims as surprising, such that they shifted his views, and ought to shift ours (that is, the reader’s)… but then, when many (but how many? we don’t know, and haven’t checked) of the findings in question failed to replicate, now we decide that it’s okay if they’re “fake frameworks”.
Does it not seem to you like this is precisely the sort of attitude toward the truth that the Sequences go to heroic lengths to warn against?
(As for CFAR, that seems to me to be a rather poor example. As far as I’m aware, CFAR has never empirically validated their techniques in any serious way, and indeed stopped trying to do so a long time ago, after initial attempts at such validation failed.)
CFAR generally taught classes and then followed up with people. They didn’t do that in a scientifically rigorous manner and had no interest in collaborating with academics like Falk Lieder to run a rigorous inquiry but that doesn’t mean that their approach wasn’t empiric. There were plenty of classes that they had in the begining where they learned after doing them and looking at empiric feedback that they weren’t a bad idea.
You might argue that the view of the sequences is opposed to the one that’s expressed in “fake frameworks” but it still seems to me one that’s popular right now.
I don’t deny that there would be some value in someone going through and fact-checking all the sequences but at the same time I understand why that’s nobodies Hemming problem.
Hemming problem?
I mispelled it and it should be “Hamming problem”. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/P5k3PGzebd5yYrYqd/the-hamming-question