I think there’s a tendency to assume the rationalist community has all the answers (e.g. The Correct Contrarian Cluster), which seems (a) wrong to me on the object-level, but also (b) at odds with a lot of other rationalist ideas.
If you point this out, you might hear someone say they’re “only an aspiring rationalist”, or “that’s in the sequences”, or “rationalists already believe that”. Which can seem like a Motte and Bailey, if it doesn’t actually dent their self-confidence at all.
(b) at odds with a lot of other rationalist ideas.
The great strength of Rationalism...yes, I’m saying something positive. .is that it’s flaws can almost always be explained using concepts from its own toolkit.
I’m not sure what you mean by “has all the answers”. I could imagine a rationalist thinking they’re n standard deviations above the average college-educated human on some measure of ‘has accurate beliefs about difficult topics’, and you disagreeing and think they’re average, or thinking their advantage is smaller. But that just seems like an ordinary disagreement to me, rather than a motte-and-bailey.
It seems at odds with rationalist ideas to assume you’re unusually knowledgeable, but not to conclude you’re unusually knowledgeable. ‘I’m average’ is just as much a claim about the world as ‘I’m exceptional’, and requires you to stick your neck out just as much—if you underestimate your ability, you’re making just as much of an epistemic mistake as if you overestimate your ability.
If rationalists think they’re right n% of the time and they’re not, then that’s condemnable in its own right, regardless of whether there’s a motte-and-bailey involved.
If rationalists think they’re right n% of the time and they are right n% of the time, but you aren’t allowed to be honest about that kind of thing while also being humble, the so much the worse for humility. There are good forms of humility, but the form of ‘humility’ that’s about lying or deceiving yourself about your competence level is straightforwardly bad.
Regardless, I don’t think there’s any inconsistency with being an ‘aspiring rationalist’. Even if you’re the most rational human alive, you probably still have enormous room to improve. Humans just aren’t that good at reasoning and decision-making yet.
I think there’s a tendency to assume the rationalist community has all the answers (e.g. The Correct Contrarian Cluster), which seems (a) wrong to me on the object-level, but also (b) at odds with a lot of other rationalist ideas.
If you point this out, you might hear someone say they’re “only an aspiring rationalist”, or “that’s in the sequences”, or “rationalists already believe that”. Which can seem like a Motte and Bailey, if it doesn’t actually dent their self-confidence at all.
The great strength of Rationalism...yes, I’m saying something positive. .is that it’s flaws can almost always be explained using concepts from its own toolkit.
I’m not sure what you mean by “has all the answers”. I could imagine a rationalist thinking they’re n standard deviations above the average college-educated human on some measure of ‘has accurate beliefs about difficult topics’, and you disagreeing and think they’re average, or thinking their advantage is smaller. But that just seems like an ordinary disagreement to me, rather than a motte-and-bailey.
It seems at odds with rationalist ideas to assume you’re unusually knowledgeable, but not to conclude you’re unusually knowledgeable. ‘I’m average’ is just as much a claim about the world as ‘I’m exceptional’, and requires you to stick your neck out just as much—if you underestimate your ability, you’re making just as much of an epistemic mistake as if you overestimate your ability.
Well, the motte is “I’m very epistemically humble”, and the bailey is “that’s why I’m always right”.
If rationalists think they’re right n% of the time and they’re not, then that’s condemnable in its own right, regardless of whether there’s a motte-and-bailey involved.
If rationalists think they’re right n% of the time and they are right n% of the time, but you aren’t allowed to be honest about that kind of thing while also being humble, the so much the worse for humility. There are good forms of humility, but the form of ‘humility’ that’s about lying or deceiving yourself about your competence level is straightforwardly bad.
Regardless, I don’t think there’s any inconsistency with being an ‘aspiring rationalist’. Even if you’re the most rational human alive, you probably still have enormous room to improve. Humans just aren’t that good at reasoning and decision-making yet.
The motte and bailey related to this I see is “I’m humble, and often wrong. But not on <whatever specific topic is at hand>.”