What, you mean we aren’t constantly saying “scientists know better, people should listen to them”, “only science can give any measure of certainty in knowledge, and Bayesian rationality is the fastest and most reliable way to find the right hypotheses to test”, “the Machine (the FGAI specifically) will make everything better or at least more interesting”, “scientists who are religious Outside The Laboratory are Doing It Wrong and ought to be taken as seriously as if they professed belief in Santa Claus”...
… I notice I might have confused Less Wrong’s general philosphy with that of Eliezer Yudkowsky specifically (the above points are caricatures and oversimplifications of stuff he actually said). That’s just not true. I’ve noticed most people over here aren’t nearly as caustic as him.
scientists know better, people should listen to them
Conditionally true, but not always true, and so can become both wrong and annoying when used fully generally as in the video.
only science can give any measure of certainty in knowledge, and Bayesian rationality is the fastest and most reliable way to find the right hypotheses to test
Not quite the LW position. Knowledge comes from evidence, science finds publicly verifiable knowledge.
the Machine (the FGAI specifically) will make everything better or at least more interesting
There is no “the Machine” to promote, we should stick to “a machine,” which will do things if built, rather than “will.” This strict factualness also keeps us from using the same mental machinery as a messianic cult, which is good both cosmetically and practically.
scientists who are religious Outside The Laboratory are Doing It Wrong and ought to be taken as seriously as if they professed belief in Santa Claus
The first part may indeed be LW manifesto material, and the second part is false for obvious social reasons.
Well, that’s why I said “obnoxious”. It’s like a very arrogant, conceited, straw-man caricature of us (actually, of the New Atheist movement, but we do share a lot of traits), which has some good points but deforms them to the point of them not being valid anymore. I suspect that’s the sort of reaction we can get if people read stuff like “Raising The Sanity Waterline” and feel so insulted they won’t listen anymore and take everything the wrong way.
Totally behind you on the first paragraph, but I can’t quite understand the two last paragraph, especially the “obvious social reasons”.
Someone who is religious Outside The Laboratory believes something silly that eir culture promotes, so ey 1) has something of an excuse in the form of childhood indoctrination and 2) probably just believes in belief or professes to believe for the social benefits. Someone who believes in Santa Claus believes something silly for no good reason and with no apparent cause, and thus is probably clinically ill.
so ey 1) has something of an excuse in the form of childhood indoctrination and 2) probably just believes in belief or professes to believe for the social benefits.
This is why I don’t particularly care about people who “believe” in a religion. No matter how rational and intelligent a person is there simply isn’t time to test every belief, and most “believers” don’t really seem too entangled in their beliefs unless challenged.
People who advocate religion on the other hand—priests, preachers, ID advocates, or whatever—I think have an epistemic responsibility to study the actual support for their beliefs.
I can’t say what sort of parody it is, but it’s pretty well done, whatever it is.
Right, right? It looks like what our manifesto would be if we had a manifesto and chose to be especially obnoxious about it (more than usual I mean).
Maybe your manifesto.
What, you mean we aren’t constantly saying “scientists know better, people should listen to them”, “only science can give any measure of certainty in knowledge, and Bayesian rationality is the fastest and most reliable way to find the right hypotheses to test”, “the Machine (the FGAI specifically) will make everything better or at least more interesting”, “scientists who are religious Outside The Laboratory are Doing It Wrong and ought to be taken as seriously as if they professed belief in Santa Claus”...
… I notice I might have confused Less Wrong’s general philosphy with that of Eliezer Yudkowsky specifically (the above points are caricatures and oversimplifications of stuff he actually said). That’s just not true. I’ve noticed most people over here aren’t nearly as caustic as him.
Conditionally true, but not always true, and so can become both wrong and annoying when used fully generally as in the video.
Not quite the LW position. Knowledge comes from evidence, science finds publicly verifiable knowledge.
There is no “the Machine” to promote, we should stick to “a machine,” which will do things if built, rather than “will.” This strict factualness also keeps us from using the same mental machinery as a messianic cult, which is good both cosmetically and practically.
The first part may indeed be LW manifesto material, and the second part is false for obvious social reasons.
Well, that’s why I said “obnoxious”. It’s like a very arrogant, conceited, straw-man caricature of us (actually, of the New Atheist movement, but we do share a lot of traits), which has some good points but deforms them to the point of them not being valid anymore. I suspect that’s the sort of reaction we can get if people read stuff like “Raising The Sanity Waterline” and feel so insulted they won’t listen anymore and take everything the wrong way.
Totally behind you on the first paragraph, but I can’t quite understand the two last paragraph, especially the “obvious social reasons”.
Someone who is religious Outside The Laboratory believes something silly that eir culture promotes, so ey 1) has something of an excuse in the form of childhood indoctrination and 2) probably just believes in belief or professes to believe for the social benefits. Someone who believes in Santa Claus believes something silly for no good reason and with no apparent cause, and thus is probably clinically ill.
This is why I don’t particularly care about people who “believe” in a religion. No matter how rational and intelligent a person is there simply isn’t time to test every belief, and most “believers” don’t really seem too entangled in their beliefs unless challenged.
People who advocate religion on the other hand—priests, preachers, ID advocates, or whatever—I think have an epistemic responsibility to study the actual support for their beliefs.