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.
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.