I haven’t figured out how to quote yet. I apologise for this fact. I wanted to mention that I found this, potentially throw-away, line insightful.
“The biologists can stop arguing with creationists, and get down to sorting out the details of kin selection or whatever. The creationists can stop having to pedal creationism to the unconvinced and can get together to work out the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.”
This sort of thing is how we get places like WUWT exposing the flaws in the IPCCs methods, models, and media pronouncements. It’s how we get places like suspicious0bservers creating a model for predicting M7+ earthquake locations with statistically significant regularity—to the point that their work is being picked up by the Chinese, Russians, and NASA.
I think it’s incredibly useful for finding not just solutions to questions, but questions that we didn’t know needed to be asked. The difficult point, and I think this is what Elizer was getting at, is in disseminating these questions and solutions to the public in such a way that social pressure is enough that something gets done about it.
I don’t have an answer for that—but that is probably because I haven’t spent at least 5 minutes by the clock thinking about the problem first.
My point was that the epistemic correlation between communicators is increasing. Before everyone was talking to everyone else more. Now experts can talk to experts, and creationists talk to other creationists. Homeopaths talk to other homeopaths.
Are you saying this is good, is bad, or is happening?
Are you saying this is good, is bad, or is happening?
I am saying it is good because it allows experts to focus on their fields. But that I thought that Elizer was pointing out that it can be bad because it doesn’t allow for dissemination of those expert ideas to others.
As an alternative, you can use GreaterWrong to write your comment(s) (where you can either select text and tap the quote button, or simply use the Markdown convention of prefacing a paragraph you want to quote with the ‘>’ symbol).
I haven’t figured out how to quote yet. I apologise for this fact. I wanted to mention that I found this, potentially throw-away, line insightful.
“The biologists can stop arguing with creationists, and get down to sorting out the details of kin selection or whatever. The creationists can stop having to pedal creationism to the unconvinced and can get together to work out the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.”
This sort of thing is how we get places like WUWT exposing the flaws in the IPCCs methods, models, and media pronouncements. It’s how we get places like suspicious0bservers creating a model for predicting M7+ earthquake locations with statistically significant regularity—to the point that their work is being picked up by the Chinese, Russians, and NASA.
I think it’s incredibly useful for finding not just solutions to questions, but questions that we didn’t know needed to be asked. The difficult point, and I think this is what Elizer was getting at, is in disseminating these questions and solutions to the public in such a way that social pressure is enough that something gets done about it.
I don’t have an answer for that—but that is probably because I haven’t spent at least 5 minutes by the clock thinking about the problem first.
My point was that the epistemic correlation between communicators is increasing. Before everyone was talking to everyone else more. Now experts can talk to experts, and creationists talk to other creationists. Homeopaths talk to other homeopaths.
Are you saying this is good, is bad, or is happening?
I am saying it is good because it allows experts to focus on their fields. But that I thought that Elizer was pointing out that it can be bad because it doesn’t allow for dissemination of those expert ideas to others.
Paste text into your comment and then select/highlight it. Formatting options will appear, including a quote button.
Thank you :)
Is there a way to do this on mobile devices?
As an alternative, you can use GreaterWrong to write your comment(s) (where you can either select text and tap the quote button, or simply use the Markdown convention of prefacing a paragraph you want to quote with the ‘>’ symbol).
To clarify somewhat: on mobile, lesswrong.com automatically uses the markdown editor. (Where beginning a line with “>” works as Said describes)
Yep, on mobile it’s Markdown by default, so just start your line with “>”,