Yup, agreed with all of this. (Well, I do think we have had discussions about which political ideology is correct, but I agree that we shy away from them and endorse political discussions about issues.)
Someone who follow a political ideology is a hedgehog and therefore likely making bad predictions. I’m not sure whether there’s a consensus but I think the “official position” to the extend that there is one, is that this is bad. EY also wrote http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/
I would also hold that political ideologies are mostly wrong.
Atheists don’t hold that religions are mostly wrong. They hold that religious believers depend on untestable hypotheses and shield their beliefs from criticisms instead of engaging them.
What could we use as a political analog of atheism? Anarchists don’t deny the existence of the state, just its benevolence.
For most issues it’s makes a lot more sense to study the issue in detail than try to have an opinion based on precached ideology.
This sounds like an ideology wearing a fig leaf. When we study the issue, do we start with a blank slate, or do we have prior beliefs about facts, values and goals? Maybe you have a different interpretation of the word “ideology” than I do, but that sounds like ideology to me, and irreducible.
Atheists don’t hold that religions are mostly wrong. They hold that religious believers depend on untestable hypotheses and shield their beliefs from criticisms instead of engaging them.
I have come across atheists who hold—sometimes quite loudly—that all religions are completely wrong.
I have no doubt that some think as you describe, but most certainly not all.
If you have one ideology that you use to explain all political events you are a hedgehog. In contrast to that foxes use multiple distinct thought systems and are not committed to any single one.
Philip E. Tetlock found in his Good Judgment Project that foxes are more likely to make accurate predictions about political events than hedgehogs. Philip E. Telock wrote before EY’s sequences that everybody should be a Bayesian and that being a Bayesian is about is about updating.
When it comes to the issue of whether the minimum wage reduces employment a Conservative might tell you “Of course minimum wage reduces employement” and a stereotypical Liberal “Of course the minimum wage reduces employement”.
I would tell you “I don’t think the evidence is conclusive either way” because I don’t want to let value judgements affect my beliefs about causation.
Atheists don’t hold that religions are mostly wrong.
Wouldnt that be a special case of most beliefs being wrong?
or most issues it’s makes a lot more sense to study the issue in detail than try to have an opinion based on precached ideology.
There isn’t enough time to study everything in detail, but there is the option of not having an opinion about what you haven’t’ studied.
This sounds like an ideology wearing a fig leaf. When we study the issue, do we start with a blank slate, or do we have prior beliefs about facts, values and goals? Maybe you have a different interpretation of the word “ideology” than I do, but that sounds like ideology to me, and irreducible
if we can’t help but bring our existing ideology to something we study, but that doesn’t mean someone who says “study X” means “study X in terms of your ideology”.
Yup, agreed with all of this. (Well, I do think we have had discussions about which political ideology is correct, but I agree that we shy away from them and endorse political discussions about issues.)
Someone who follow a political ideology is a hedgehog and therefore likely making bad predictions. I’m not sure whether there’s a consensus but I think the “official position” to the extend that there is one, is that this is bad. EY also wrote http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/
Atheists don’t hold that religions are mostly wrong. They hold that religious believers depend on untestable hypotheses and shield their beliefs from criticisms instead of engaging them.
What could we use as a political analog of atheism? Anarchists don’t deny the existence of the state, just its benevolence.
This sounds like an ideology wearing a fig leaf. When we study the issue, do we start with a blank slate, or do we have prior beliefs about facts, values and goals? Maybe you have a different interpretation of the word “ideology” than I do, but that sounds like ideology to me, and irreducible.
Agnostics don’t hold that religions are mostly wrong.
Considering religions wrong is precisely what differentiates atheists from agnostics.
I have come across atheists who hold—sometimes quite loudly—that all religions are completely wrong.
I have no doubt that some think as you describe, but most certainly not all.
If you have one ideology that you use to explain all political events you are a hedgehog. In contrast to that foxes use multiple distinct thought systems and are not committed to any single one.
Philip E. Tetlock found in his Good Judgment Project that foxes are more likely to make accurate predictions about political events than hedgehogs. Philip E. Telock wrote before EY’s sequences that everybody should be a Bayesian and that being a Bayesian is about is about updating.
When it comes to the issue of whether the minimum wage reduces employment a Conservative might tell you “Of course minimum wage reduces employement” and a stereotypical Liberal “Of course the minimum wage reduces employement”. I would tell you “I don’t think the evidence is conclusive either way” because I don’t want to let value judgements affect my beliefs about causation.
Wouldnt that be a special case of most beliefs being wrong?
There isn’t enough time to study everything in detail, but there is the option of not having an opinion about what you haven’t’ studied.
if we can’t help but bring our existing ideology to something we study, but that doesn’t mean someone who says “study X” means “study X in terms of your ideology”.