This expected arbitrariness of the pick, general unsuitability of LW for usefully judging its relevance, and presence of the statement “if this paper is correct, Eliezer may have won some money” contributed to me downvoting the post...
Upon looking more on arXiv, I agree that there are lots more potential explanations then the one I happened to find out about from reading the news, so I agree the pick is arbitrary. The Wikipedia page on the anomaly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_neutrino_anomaly has multiple different explanations. I didn’t think to look harder for multiple explanations, which was incorrect. It appears that I need more training in my ability to gather information.
For construction purposes, I generally followed the template of the previous discussion, since it was rated positively overall: similar topic, An arXiv link, three news sources, quotes from paper, and brief statement from me. I checked after you posted and it appears that in the previous thread there was also some mention of downvoting for topic choice as well, although there were arguments against that as well, and both sides of the argument were upvoted. I feel this is best summed up by something you said earlier in a different thread:
This shouldn’t be a problem, I believe. To the extent it becomes objectionable to doubt anyone’s sanity without a solid case, we are losing ability to guard against error. It should be a routine matter, like washing your hands.
Which is reasonable, and seems to apply to suitability as well as sanity.
So I agree with your first critique, and respect your second. However, there are multiple potential reasons that you might not have liked the statement “if this paper is correct, Eliezer may have won some money.” Can you explain why you added that to the list?
However, there are multiple potential reasons that you might not have liked the statement “if this paper is correct, Eliezer may have won some money.” Can you explain why you added that to the list?
Eliezer’s bet shouldn’t be interesting/relevant in this context. Highlighting this point sets off my cultishness alarm.
This expected arbitrariness of the pick, general unsuitability of LW for usefully judging its relevance, and presence of the statement “if this paper is correct, Eliezer may have won some money” contributed to me downvoting the post...
First of all, I appreciate the feedback.
Upon looking more on arXiv, I agree that there are lots more potential explanations then the one I happened to find out about from reading the news, so I agree the pick is arbitrary. The Wikipedia page on the anomaly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_neutrino_anomaly has multiple different explanations. I didn’t think to look harder for multiple explanations, which was incorrect. It appears that I need more training in my ability to gather information.
For construction purposes, I generally followed the template of the previous discussion, since it was rated positively overall: similar topic, An arXiv link, three news sources, quotes from paper, and brief statement from me. I checked after you posted and it appears that in the previous thread there was also some mention of downvoting for topic choice as well, although there were arguments against that as well, and both sides of the argument were upvoted. I feel this is best summed up by something you said earlier in a different thread:
Which is reasonable, and seems to apply to suitability as well as sanity.
So I agree with your first critique, and respect your second. However, there are multiple potential reasons that you might not have liked the statement “if this paper is correct, Eliezer may have won some money.” Can you explain why you added that to the list?
Eliezer’s bet shouldn’t be interesting/relevant in this context. Highlighting this point sets off my cultishness alarm.
Thank you, that makes it more clear.
Except, it would seem, yourself?
It’s true. Folks have been making a bit deal about betting on the subject. I don’t see what is wrong with saying it.
I think that “relevance” means, relevance to the problem of the supposedly faster-than-light particles. He didn’t offer a judgment on that.
Correct.