all I see is strawmanning everything Eliezer dislikes
It would probably help to have a link to specific people/books who have inspired specific sections, to see how much they were strawmanned.
I remember talking with a few people who refused to be reasonable about anything, defending it with more and more meta nonsense, typically up to “how do you even know there is such thing as a reality or truth?” Using LW lingo, you can evaluate maps by compating then with the terrority, but what if someone’s map contains a large text “there is no such thing as territory”? Even if you show them that your map fits the territory better, they will point out that matching the territory counts as an improvement only according to your map, not according to their map, so you didn’t really demonstrate anything beyond your maps being different, which both of you already knew.
Reading the article reminded me of some of their techniques. Yeah, that didn’t really mean disproving them. But I was nice to know I wasn’t the only one who finds these discussion techniques irritating.
It would probably help to have a link to specific people/books who have inspired specific sections, to see how much they were strawmanned.
Yes, it would, but I am no expert in the area, hence my question here.
what if someone’s map contains a large text “there is no such thing as territory”?
Well, mine does, but I am quite happy to get by with a sequence of ever-more predictive (you would call them accurate) maps. One can certainly avoid relying on the map/territory metaphysics and still behave at least as rationally as someone who does. However, I agree that
“how do you even know there is such thing as a reality or truth?”
is generally a copout in reply to an argument someone is willing but unable to counter and thus holds no value when used for this purpose only. Presumably Mark in the story is one of those, though grotesquely strawmanned:
“But what’s the actual answer?”
“Now, I’d like to move on to the issue of how logic kills cute baby seals—”
“Now, I’d like to move on to the issue of how logic kills cute baby seals—”
The real-life equivalents are more like: “You know who else disagreed with religion? Stalin did!” or “You know who else said there are differences between people? Hitler did!” This is supposed to somehow prove religion and disprove evolution.
It would probably help to have a link to specific people/books who have inspired specific sections, to see how much they were strawmanned.
I remember talking with a few people who refused to be reasonable about anything, defending it with more and more meta nonsense, typically up to “how do you even know there is such thing as a reality or truth?” Using LW lingo, you can evaluate maps by compating then with the terrority, but what if someone’s map contains a large text “there is no such thing as territory”? Even if you show them that your map fits the territory better, they will point out that matching the territory counts as an improvement only according to your map, not according to their map, so you didn’t really demonstrate anything beyond your maps being different, which both of you already knew.
Reading the article reminded me of some of their techniques. Yeah, that didn’t really mean disproving them. But I was nice to know I wasn’t the only one who finds these discussion techniques irritating.
Yes, it would, but I am no expert in the area, hence my question here.
Well, mine does, but I am quite happy to get by with a sequence of ever-more predictive (you would call them accurate) maps. One can certainly avoid relying on the map/territory metaphysics and still behave at least as rationally as someone who does. However, I agree that
is generally a copout in reply to an argument someone is willing but unable to counter and thus holds no value when used for this purpose only. Presumably Mark in the story is one of those, though grotesquely strawmanned:
The real-life equivalents are more like: “You know who else disagreed with religion? Stalin did!” or “You know who else said there are differences between people? Hitler did!” This is supposed to somehow prove religion and disprove evolution.