I agree. I think that the reason why it seems as though people who think that the sequences are awesome don’t exist is partially because of selection bias—those that disagree with the sequences are most likely to comment about disagreeing, thus lending disproportionate weight on people who disagree with certain parts of the sequences.
I found the sequences to be a life changing piece of literature, and I usually consider myself fairly well read, especially in regards to the general population. The sequences changed my worldview, and forced me to reevaluate my entire inner philosophy. Suffice to say, had I not stumbled upon the sequences, my life would have taken an entirely different path.
I think that for every person who dismisses the sequences as “unimportant” or “arrogant”, there are many more lurkers out there who have found the sequences to be amazing in helping improve their instrumental rationality, and vastly improve the quality of their lives.
That said, I agree with almost all the points regarding the sequences except what you mentioned regarding Science vs Bayes.
I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.
I disagree with this aspect because I think scientists can not and should not be trusted with Bayesian Inference—mostly because firstly, science should be sure of it’s conclusions, rather than assigning probability estimates to different interpretations. The potential for human judgement to be wrong coupled with the fact that often, wrongness has large consequences in the field of science warrants me to believe that the risk is not worth the possible speed of progress that we would gain.
Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with almost all of the points in the Sequences, and I’d like to say that “I stand by the sequences”, too.
I disagree with this aspect because I think scientists can not and should not be trusted with Bayesian Inference—mostly because firstly, science should be sure of it’s conclusions, rather than assigning probability estimates to different interpretations. The potential for human judgement to be wrong coupled with the fact that often, wrongness has large consequences in the field of science warrants me to believe that the risk is not worth the possible speed of progress that we would gain.
In practice scientists often look at multiple hypotheses at once and consider them with different likelyhoods.. Moreover, the dangers of human judgement exist whether or not one feels one is “certain” or is more willing to admit uncertainty.
Science cannot be absolutely omniscient. However, it should attempt to be as consistent as possible until the point where it sacrifices consistency for truth. At least, that’s my take on it.
I agree. I think that the reason why it seems as though people who think that the sequences are awesome don’t exist is partially because of selection bias—those that disagree with the sequences are most likely to comment about disagreeing, thus lending disproportionate weight on people who disagree with certain parts of the sequences.
I found the sequences to be a life changing piece of literature, and I usually consider myself fairly well read, especially in regards to the general population. The sequences changed my worldview, and forced me to reevaluate my entire inner philosophy. Suffice to say, had I not stumbled upon the sequences, my life would have taken an entirely different path.
I think that for every person who dismisses the sequences as “unimportant” or “arrogant”, there are many more lurkers out there who have found the sequences to be amazing in helping improve their instrumental rationality, and vastly improve the quality of their lives.
That said, I agree with almost all the points regarding the sequences except what you mentioned regarding Science vs Bayes.
I disagree with this aspect because I think scientists can not and should not be trusted with Bayesian Inference—mostly because firstly, science should be sure of it’s conclusions, rather than assigning probability estimates to different interpretations. The potential for human judgement to be wrong coupled with the fact that often, wrongness has large consequences in the field of science warrants me to believe that the risk is not worth the possible speed of progress that we would gain.
Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with almost all of the points in the Sequences, and I’d like to say that “I stand by the sequences”, too.
In practice scientists often look at multiple hypotheses at once and consider them with different likelyhoods.. Moreover, the dangers of human judgement exist whether or not one feels one is “certain” or is more willing to admit uncertainty.
You are asking too much.
(Here I am defending those Sequences against you. Me who doesn’t agree with them, against you who side with them. Funny, isn’t it?)
Surer*
Science cannot be absolutely omniscient. However, it should attempt to be as consistent as possible until the point where it sacrifices consistency for truth. At least, that’s my take on it.