I cannot avoid the impression that you started out with the belief that SIAI was not a credible charity and rather than investigating the evidence both for and against that belief, you have marshaled the strongest arguments against donating to SIAI and ignored any evidence in favor of donating to SIAI.
“If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents’ arguments. But if you’re interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents’ arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse.” -- Black Belt Bayesian
If multifoliaterose took the position of a advocatus diaboli, what would be wrong with that?
Although I always love a good quote from Black Belt Bayesian (a/k/a steven0461 a/k/a my husband), I think he’s on board with my interpretation of multifoliaterose’s posts. (At least, he’d better be!)
Going on to the substance, it doesn’t seem that multifoliaterose is just playing devil’s advocate here rather than arguing his actual beliefs – indeed everything he’s written suggests that he’s doing the latter. Beyond that, there may be a place for devil’s advocacy (so long as it doesn’t cross the line into mere trolling, which multifoliaterose’s posts certainly do not) at LW. But I think that most aspiring rationalists (myself included) should still try to evaluate evidence for and against some position, and only tread into devil’s advocacy with extreme caution, since it is a form of argument where it is all too easy to lose sight of the ultimate goal of weighing the available evidence accurately.
Although I always love a good quote from Black Belt Bayesian (a/k/a steven0461 a/k/a my husband)
Wow, I managed to walk into the lion’s den there!
Going on to the substance, it doesn’t seem that multifoliaterose is just playing devil’s advocate here...
Yeah, I wasn’t actually thinking that to be the case either. But since nobody else seems to be following your husbands advice...at least someone tries to argue against the SIAI. Good criticism can be a good thing.
...and only tread into devil’s advocacy with extreme caution...
I see, I’ll take your word for it. I haven’t thought about it too much. So far I thought your husbands quote is universally applicable.
If multifoliaterose took the position of a advocatus diaboli, what would be wrong with that?
Multi has already refuted the opponent’s arguments, well at least Eliezer more or less refuted them for him. Now it is time to do just what Black Belt Bayesian suggested and try to fix the SIAI’s arguments for them. Because advocacy—including devil’s advocacy—is mostly bullshit.
Remind SIAI of what they are clearly doing right and also just what a good presentation of their strengths would look like—who knows, maybe it’ll spur them on and achieve in some measure just the kind of changes you desire!
So while telling the truth is maximally accurate relative to your epistemic state, concealment is deception by misguidance which is worse than the purest form of deception that is lying (falsehood). Bullshit however is not even wrong.
I don’t see how devil’s advocacy fits into this as I perceive it to be a temporary adjustment of someones mental angel to look back at one’s own position from a different point of view.
“If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents’ arguments. But if you’re interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents’ arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse.” -- Black Belt Bayesian
If multifoliaterose took the position of a advocatus diaboli, what would be wrong with that?
Although I always love a good quote from Black Belt Bayesian (a/k/a steven0461 a/k/a my husband), I think he’s on board with my interpretation of multifoliaterose’s posts. (At least, he’d better be!)
Going on to the substance, it doesn’t seem that multifoliaterose is just playing devil’s advocate here rather than arguing his actual beliefs – indeed everything he’s written suggests that he’s doing the latter. Beyond that, there may be a place for devil’s advocacy (so long as it doesn’t cross the line into mere trolling, which multifoliaterose’s posts certainly do not) at LW. But I think that most aspiring rationalists (myself included) should still try to evaluate evidence for and against some position, and only tread into devil’s advocacy with extreme caution, since it is a form of argument where it is all too easy to lose sight of the ultimate goal of weighing the available evidence accurately.
Wow, I managed to walk into the lion’s den there!
Yeah, I wasn’t actually thinking that to be the case either. But since nobody else seems to be following your husbands advice...at least someone tries to argue against the SIAI. Good criticism can be a good thing.
I see, I’ll take your word for it. I haven’t thought about it too much. So far I thought your husbands quote is universally applicable.
Multi has already refuted the opponent’s arguments, well at least Eliezer more or less refuted them for him. Now it is time to do just what Black Belt Bayesian suggested and try to fix the SIAI’s arguments for them. Because advocacy—including devil’s advocacy—is mostly bullshit.
Remind SIAI of what they are clearly doing right and also just what a good presentation of their strengths would look like—who knows, maybe it’ll spur them on and achieve in some measure just the kind of changes you desire!
Interesting! Levels of epistemic accuracy:
(1) Truth
(2) Concealment
(3) Falsehood
(4) Bullshit (Not even wrong)
So while telling the truth is maximally accurate relative to your epistemic state, concealment is deception by misguidance which is worse than the purest form of deception that is lying (falsehood). Bullshit however is not even wrong.
I don’t see how devil’s advocacy fits into this as I perceive it to be a temporary adjustment of someones mental angel to look back at one’s own position from a different point of view.