Oops, I misread. What I intended to communicate was that I didn’t understand the point of the post—I kept trying to reply to comments, but there was an inferential silence where I kept stopping, thinking ‘What is the point of this post and discussion?’. There seems to be no reason to steelman creationism like this.
Admittedly, it would be nice to have an explanation of what Chris is thinking at the top, about when it is okay to not bother steelmanning, because otherwise people may be really confused about what’s going on. I certainly was.
(Not that I’m sure not-steelmanning is the correct position, but while it feels so intuitively, I didn’t realise that was being questioned here. It just felt unnecessary.)
This should’ve been in the post—I suspected you were meta-trolling or something, for a while.
Huh? What he learned about LW appears to be learned from the responses, so how could he have put it in the post ahead of time?
Oops, I misread. What I intended to communicate was that I didn’t understand the point of the post—I kept trying to reply to comments, but there was an inferential silence where I kept stopping, thinking ‘What is the point of this post and discussion?’. There seems to be no reason to steelman creationism like this.
Admittedly, it would be nice to have an explanation of what Chris is thinking at the top, about when it is okay to not bother steelmanning, because otherwise people may be really confused about what’s going on. I certainly was.
(Not that I’m sure not-steelmanning is the correct position, but while it feels so intuitively, I didn’t realise that was being questioned here. It just felt unnecessary.)