Eliezer uses “Traditional Rationality” to mean something like “Rationality, as practised by scientists everywhere, especially the ones who read Feynman and Popper”. It refers to the rules that scientists follow.
… could be interpreted as making claims about Popper or Feynman, or attributing any positions to them. Oscar’s writing was quite clear and understandable.
Read the context. Oscar makes a set of claims about scientists, especially those who read Popper and Feynman. Such scientists, apparently, make a fetish of falsification, they operate only in a small domain, don’t explain how knowledge is created etc. Well, those sort of things are not in the tradition of Popper and Feynman and if there are scientists who do that, and who have read Popper and Feynman, then they did not understand what they read. Not only is Oscar’s comment rude to the tradition of Popper and Feynman, he doesn’t understand that tradition.
if there are scientists who do that, and who have read Popper and Feynman, then they did not understand what they read.
Right, and if that’s the case, then Oscar’s characterization was correct, and not attributing any positions to Feynman and Popper.
Oscar was just summarizing Eliezer (with caveats like “something like”), it seems a bit like a wate of time to attack his summary in detail, where instead you could just find from which of Eliezer’s writings Oscar formed that impression, and point out any errors at their source.
My vague recollection of Eliezer’s position would be something like “Here are the kind of mistakes that I made, that listening to Feynman didn’t prevent, and that scientists still make”. But again, that’s just my vague summary, no point in trying to take it apart.
I don’t see how
… could be interpreted as making claims about Popper or Feynman, or attributing any positions to them. Oscar’s writing was quite clear and understandable.
You really don’t see how that could be done, even with the usage of words such as “especially”?
Read the context. Oscar makes a set of claims about scientists, especially those who read Popper and Feynman. Such scientists, apparently, make a fetish of falsification, they operate only in a small domain, don’t explain how knowledge is created etc. Well, those sort of things are not in the tradition of Popper and Feynman and if there are scientists who do that, and who have read Popper and Feynman, then they did not understand what they read. Not only is Oscar’s comment rude to the tradition of Popper and Feynman, he doesn’t understand that tradition.
Right, and if that’s the case, then Oscar’s characterization was correct, and not attributing any positions to Feynman and Popper.
Oscar was just summarizing Eliezer (with caveats like “something like”), it seems a bit like a wate of time to attack his summary in detail, where instead you could just find from which of Eliezer’s writings Oscar formed that impression, and point out any errors at their source.
My vague recollection of Eliezer’s position would be something like “Here are the kind of mistakes that I made, that listening to Feynman didn’t prevent, and that scientists still make”. But again, that’s just my vague summary, no point in trying to take it apart.
Accurately understanding a work is no prerequisite to being influenced by it.