“The level of expertise that most rationalists strive to develop is not on a par with the skills of a professional mathematician—more like that of a strong casual amateur.” Are we to assume that professional mathematicians are always to be regarded as the ultimate practitioners of rationality? Given the number of dead ends achieved through pure mathematic theory in attempts to forumulate ‘a theory of everything’ is it not worth considering althernative methods?
As to ‘sequence reruns’, ‘meta discussions’ etc agreed definitions of these terms are I suggest not to be taken for granted.
Are we to assume that professional mathematicians are always to be regarded as the ultimate practitioners of rationality?
You’re misreading the analogy. The quote means that rationalists aren’t aspiring to be as good at rationality as mathematicians already are at mathematics (not rationality).
Are we to assume that professional mathematicians are always to be regarded as the ultimate practitioners of rationality?
I think it’s a failing of the quote in the summary. The actual article says,
Even among those whose few who impress me with a hint of dawning formidability—I don’t think that their mastery of rationality could compare to, say, John Conway’s mastery of math. [Snip comparisons to other professions...] We practice our skills, we do, in the ad-hoc ways we taught ourselves; but that practice probably doesn’t compare to the training regimen an Olympic runner goes through, or maybe even an ordinary professional tennis player.
So what the summary should say is that the skills needed by rationalists are incomparable to the skills needed by e.g., a professional scientist. This coheres with EY’s criticisms of Traditional Rationality and the modern scientific institutions (his mancrush on Conway notwithstanding).
Given the number of dead ends achieved through pure mathematic [sic] theory in attempts to forumulate [sic] ‘a theory of everything’ is it not worth considering althernative [sic] methods?
No idea what you’re trying to say. Sometimes people talk about alternative set theories as “theories of everything” but honestly the amount of lost effort is not terribly significant. Maybe you’re confused with the physicists’ “theory of everything”? That is just a mythological construct that no one serious is actually working towards.
“The level of expertise that most rationalists strive to develop is not on a par with the skills of a professional mathematician—more like that of a strong casual amateur.” Are we to assume that professional mathematicians are always to be regarded as the ultimate practitioners of rationality? Given the number of dead ends achieved through pure mathematic theory in attempts to forumulate ‘a theory of everything’ is it not worth considering althernative methods? As to ‘sequence reruns’, ‘meta discussions’ etc agreed definitions of these terms are I suggest not to be taken for granted.
You’re misreading the analogy. The quote means that rationalists aren’t aspiring to be as good at rationality as mathematicians already are at mathematics (not rationality).
I think it’s a failing of the quote in the summary. The actual article says,
So what the summary should say is that the skills needed by rationalists are incomparable to the skills needed by e.g., a professional scientist. This coheres with EY’s criticisms of Traditional Rationality and the modern scientific institutions (his mancrush on Conway notwithstanding).
No idea what you’re trying to say. Sometimes people talk about alternative set theories as “theories of everything” but honestly the amount of lost effort is not terribly significant. Maybe you’re confused with the physicists’ “theory of everything”? That is just a mythological construct that no one serious is actually working towards.