So, Robin claims to be a pure truth seeker—though AFAIK, he hasn’t explicitly stated that he in interested in helping others sort out their views. Eleizer doesn’t claim to be a pure truth seeker in the first place.
I suspect that Robin does not actually value the truth that much. Four billion years of his ancestors valuing other things probably bears on him substantially. For example, Robin has stated: “I think about sex an awful lot.” I don’t see what that has got to do with believing the truth. I suspect that believing the truth is something Robin consciously aspires to do—and isn’t what an unbiased economic analysis of him would uncover as his actual aim.
So: the premises of the disagreement theorems seem unlikely to be satisfied.
IMO, a more obvious explanation is that one or both parties does not have believing the truth (and helping others to believe it) as their primary aim.
… you take this over the idea that with their vastly different stores of theory and practical knowledge, they can reach drastically different conclusions on something outside of both of their domains of direct experience, while still processing as something reasonably approximating rationality?
Eleizer doesn’t claim to be a pure truth seeker in the first place.
Are you kidding?
If you go to his website the first thing you’ll see is a big, fat quote: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
Come on, if you read only a few lines of Eliezer you’ll see that he is a “pure truth seeker”, or at least he claims to be one.
From that I have to infer that you are not a “pure truth seeker” or you are simply not interested in Eliezer’s opinions.
IMO, a more obvious explanation is that one or both parties does not have believing the truth (and helping others to believe it) as their primary aim.
Robin seems to have said his aim is to believe the truth. The last I heard, Eleizer’s aim was to reach something called “the singularity” as fast as possible.
So, Robin claims to be a pure truth seeker—though AFAIK, he hasn’t explicitly stated that he in interested in helping others sort out their views. Eleizer doesn’t claim to be a pure truth seeker in the first place.
I suspect that Robin does not actually value the truth that much. Four billion years of his ancestors valuing other things probably bears on him substantially. For example, Robin has stated: “I think about sex an awful lot.” I don’t see what that has got to do with believing the truth. I suspect that believing the truth is something Robin consciously aspires to do—and isn’t what an unbiased economic analysis of him would uncover as his actual aim.
So: the premises of the disagreement theorems seem unlikely to be satisfied.
… you take this over the idea that with their vastly different stores of theory and practical knowledge, they can reach drastically different conclusions on something outside of both of their domains of direct experience, while still processing as something reasonably approximating rationality?
Are you kidding? If you go to his website the first thing you’ll see is a big, fat quote: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” Come on, if you read only a few lines of Eliezer you’ll see that he is a “pure truth seeker”, or at least he claims to be one. From that I have to infer that you are not a “pure truth seeker” or you are simply not interested in Eliezer’s opinions.