Without any comment on if the post is correct or not, I want to note that if the sequences have done their job LWers will not be pursuaded by this post.
Hang on. Did you mean to say that the conclusion of this post is wrong? If the sequences did their job, then LWers should steelman the arguments, and be persuaded if-f the conclusion is correct, regardless of the arguments presented.
It’s hard to steelman, for example, an incorrect proof of Fermat’s Theorem in the way you describe.
Filling in the gaps in this post requires doing some research into the current state of philosophy. Some of the commenters are in fact trying to do just that. But it’s much harder to lay an egg than to tell if one is rotten.
Hang on. Did you mean to say that the conclusion of this post is wrong? If the sequences did their job, then LWers should steelman the arguments, and be persuaded if-f the conclusion is correct, regardless of the arguments presented.
It’s hard to steelman, for example, an incorrect proof of Fermat’s Theorem in the way you describe.
Filling in the gaps in this post requires doing some research into the current state of philosophy. Some of the commenters are in fact trying to do just that. But it’s much harder to lay an egg than to tell if one is rotten.