Removed from the frontpage for now, since we try to keep frontpage discussion free from being primarily about the rationality community and it’s specific structure. I would recommend putting the last section into its own post, which is then on your personal blog, and then I am happy to promote this to the frontpage.
Done. Note it was not about the rationality community, but about the broader set of people thinking about this problem.
For reference
What else to notice?
On meta level, it seems to me seriously important to notice that it took so long until some researchers noticed and did the statistics right. Meanwhile, lots of highly speculative mechanisms resolving the largely non-existent paradox were proposed.This may indicate something important about the community. As an example: may there be a strong bias for searching for grand, intellectually intriguing solutions?
If an intellectual community suppresses attempts to promote its object-level epistemological failures to attention and cause appropriate meta-level updates to happen, then it’s going to stop having an epistemology before long.
That’s certainly true and a problem. If you have some ideas about how to avoid it (in this case or more generally) I’d be interested to read them; feel free to post in meta with some thoughts/ideas, or write them as comments in the last meta thread on this topic.
My bad, I just read the first four paragraphs and then moved it to frontpage. Will take this as data that I should read more carefully before promoting.
Removed from the frontpage for now, since we try to keep frontpage discussion free from being primarily about the rationality community and it’s specific structure. I would recommend putting the last section into its own post, which is then on your personal blog, and then I am happy to promote this to the frontpage.
Done. Note it was not about the rationality community, but about the broader set of people thinking about this problem.
For reference
What else to notice?
On meta level, it seems to me seriously important to notice that it took so long until some researchers noticed and did the statistics right. Meanwhile, lots of highly speculative mechanisms resolving the largely non-existent paradox were proposed.This may indicate something important about the community. As an example: may there be a strong bias for searching for grand, intellectually intriguing solutions?
If an intellectual community suppresses attempts to promote its object-level epistemological failures to attention and cause appropriate meta-level updates to happen, then it’s going to stop having an epistemology before long.
I’ve re-posted the question about why this inadequacy under Meta
That’s certainly true and a problem. If you have some ideas about how to avoid it (in this case or more generally) I’d be interested to read them; feel free to post in meta with some thoughts/ideas, or write them as comments in the last meta thread on this topic.
My bad, I just read the first four paragraphs and then moved it to frontpage. Will take this as data that I should read more carefully before promoting.