I’m researching “MaxEnt” so lukeprog’s recommendation of the Williamson book on Bayesianism is directly useful to me.
But actually it’s a great article (the reasons why are somewhat easy to analyse in hindsight – writing a piece of such quality in the first place is the challenge!)
First he illustrates clearly the problem to be discussed (neglect of scholarship), using a quote to emphasise the consensus that exists regarding the value of scholarship. He then provides a very engaging example about the lack of scholarship of atheists who debate theists – engaging because a supermajority of readers are provoked by the idea that theists might win such a debate, because it is very detailed (evidence that the author practises what he preaches) and because the criticism of a notably rational group of people prevents the reader from dismissing the idea that they as a rationalist might need to improve their own scholarship.
The subsequent mention of Less Wrong readers and their lack of detailed understanding of Bayesianism, to the extent that it is true (probably a large extent) then hammers home the point that the reader is in fact not as scholarly as he might be. This is followed by a criticism of Yudkowsky’s own scholarship in one of his articles, which is entertaining because it is ironic given the quote at the start of the article, and immediately prevents the reader from feeling that the author is trying to humiliate him with these examples (since Yudkowsky is such a respected figure).
At the end of the article lukeprog provides concrete recommendations regarding how to improve one’s scholarship – in effect helping the reader to overcome the “twinge of starting” that might cause him to procrastinate in trying to implement the author’s suggestions. In a general sense the article adopts a strict, but encouraging tone which also should help in this regard.
I’m going to be a suck-up and nominate the neglected virtue of scholarship.
I’m researching “MaxEnt” so lukeprog’s recommendation of the Williamson book on Bayesianism is directly useful to me.
But actually it’s a great article (the reasons why are somewhat easy to analyse in hindsight – writing a piece of such quality in the first place is the challenge!)
First he illustrates clearly the problem to be discussed (neglect of scholarship), using a quote to emphasise the consensus that exists regarding the value of scholarship. He then provides a very engaging example about the lack of scholarship of atheists who debate theists – engaging because a supermajority of readers are provoked by the idea that theists might win such a debate, because it is very detailed (evidence that the author practises what he preaches) and because the criticism of a notably rational group of people prevents the reader from dismissing the idea that they as a rationalist might need to improve their own scholarship.
The subsequent mention of Less Wrong readers and their lack of detailed understanding of Bayesianism, to the extent that it is true (probably a large extent) then hammers home the point that the reader is in fact not as scholarly as he might be. This is followed by a criticism of Yudkowsky’s own scholarship in one of his articles, which is entertaining because it is ironic given the quote at the start of the article, and immediately prevents the reader from feeling that the author is trying to humiliate him with these examples (since Yudkowsky is such a respected figure).
At the end of the article lukeprog provides concrete recommendations regarding how to improve one’s scholarship – in effect helping the reader to overcome the “twinge of starting” that might cause him to procrastinate in trying to implement the author’s suggestions. In a general sense the article adopts a strict, but encouraging tone which also should help in this regard.