This is, after all, an advanced rationality forum—one expects folks here to either be well beyond giving serious consideration to the claims of religion, or at the very least interested enough in epistemology to be able to stomach critiques of theism.
I’m glad to know that we are so much more advanced at being Bayesian rationalists than silly folks like Robert Aumann or, uh, the Reverend Thomas Bayes.
Yes, I’m being snide, but this sounds a bit too self-congratulating. Are we really in a position to be all but saying “these specific beliefs are a prerequisite for posting”?
There is a big difference between being a scholar of something like Bayesian probability or game theory and desiring to apply rationality in your life. Thus, there is no contradiction between believing that Aumann could run rings around anybody here when it comes to the relevant mathematics and that he might be far less rational in his everyday life than the average LW reader.
It’s wrong in general to assume that somebody who researches a topic is influenced in their day-to-day activities by their research. They usually just find it an intellectually stimulating topic that they enjoy working in, and the only effect it has on their non-academic life is that they sometimes think about it outside of the university.
I think it’s fair to say that if Aumann were a poster here and wrote in support of theism, Eliezer and friends would come down on him like a (very respectful) ton of bricks and he would either de-convert or switch to a non-rationalist mode under pressure. It’s not he’s a good rationalist and a theist. He’s a good rationalist xor a theist, at any one time.
You should worry when you say something that doesn’t advance your argument if you take out the snide—I have to guard against this myself. It’s not that we are “so much more advanced” at being Bayesian rationalists—it’s that we are applying those techniques to a domain that they compartmentalised away.
It’s not because we’re meanies, or self-congratulatory, that theists are extremely irrational about something that touches on many parts of their thinking—it’s a fact that we have to live with. There’s just no way that someone can be religious and on board with what we are trying to do here, because being on board would inevitably mean opening the compartment, breaking the spell, and losing those beliefs.
What I was trying to get at is that it seems likely to me that most of us here probably have at least one irrational belief, and that there’s a fine line between “we agree that this is irrational” and “you must reject this belief to participate here”. The latter is harmful even if the belief is factually incorrect.
That is to say, the only reason we should want theists to avoid this site is because they’ve observed that other theists participating here deconvert suspiciously often.
EDIT: Fixed some tpyos that seriously screwed up a point I was making.
I know one theist who deconverted at least in part because of OB, and there are others who have posted here to say the same. That’s pretty strong testimony that we’ve got some good stuff here, although it could plausibly be sampling bias.
And religious message boards often have a few converts they can trot out to demonstrate the power of their content.
If you’re trying to be a rationalist, why reach a conclusion about the effectiveness of OB’s content to induce deconversion if you don’t know how many theists have come across it and failed to deconvert? You’re not in possession of the information needed to reach a rational conclusion.
Regarding the good Reverend, we stand on the shoulders of giants that came after him, and are lucky enough to find ourselves in a more tolerant environment. And Laplace independently went further than Bayes not that much later, and had no need of that hypothesis.
Yes, I’m being snide, but this sounds a bit too self-congratulating. Are we really in a position to be all but saying “these specific beliefs are a prerequisite for posting”?
Did komponisto say that? I read “expect” as descriptive, not normative.
The bit about Rev. Bayes was something of a cheap shot, I admit. My impression has actually been that Bayes himself was a mostly unremarkable scholar (compared to someone like Laplace, that is!) and quite possibly would not even agree with modern Bayesian statistics.
Did komponisto say that? I read “expect” as descriptive, not normative.
I read it as a bit of both. If I was incorrect to do so, mea culpa and apologies to komponisto.
I’m glad to know that we are so much more advanced at being Bayesian rationalists than silly folks like Robert Aumann or, uh, the Reverend Thomas Bayes.
Yes, I’m being snide, but this sounds a bit too self-congratulating. Are we really in a position to be all but saying “these specific beliefs are a prerequisite for posting”?
There is a big difference between being a scholar of something like Bayesian probability or game theory and desiring to apply rationality in your life. Thus, there is no contradiction between believing that Aumann could run rings around anybody here when it comes to the relevant mathematics and that he might be far less rational in his everyday life than the average LW reader.
It’s wrong in general to assume that somebody who researches a topic is influenced in their day-to-day activities by their research. They usually just find it an intellectually stimulating topic that they enjoy working in, and the only effect it has on their non-academic life is that they sometimes think about it outside of the university.
Expecting Aumann to be extremely rational is like expecting philosophers of ethics to be extremely ethical.
I think it’s fair to say that if Aumann were a poster here and wrote in support of theism, Eliezer and friends would come down on him like a (very respectful) ton of bricks and he would either de-convert or switch to a non-rationalist mode under pressure. It’s not he’s a good rationalist and a theist. He’s a good rationalist xor a theist, at any one time.
You should worry when you say something that doesn’t advance your argument if you take out the snide—I have to guard against this myself. It’s not that we are “so much more advanced” at being Bayesian rationalists—it’s that we are applying those techniques to a domain that they compartmentalised away.
It’s not because we’re meanies, or self-congratulatory, that theists are extremely irrational about something that touches on many parts of their thinking—it’s a fact that we have to live with. There’s just no way that someone can be religious and on board with what we are trying to do here, because being on board would inevitably mean opening the compartment, breaking the spell, and losing those beliefs.
I agree, on the whole.
What I was trying to get at is that it seems likely to me that most of us here probably have at least one irrational belief, and that there’s a fine line between “we agree that this is irrational” and “you must reject this belief to participate here”. The latter is harmful even if the belief is factually incorrect.
That is to say, the only reason we should want theists to avoid this site is because they’ve observed that other theists participating here deconvert suspiciously often.
EDIT: Fixed some tpyos that seriously screwed up a point I was making.
I know one theist who deconverted at least in part because of OB, and there are others who have posted here to say the same. That’s pretty strong testimony that we’ve got some good stuff here, although it could plausibly be sampling bias.
And religious message boards often have a few converts they can trot out to demonstrate the power of their content.
If you’re trying to be a rationalist, why reach a conclusion about the effectiveness of OB’s content to induce deconversion if you don’t know how many theists have come across it and failed to deconvert? You’re not in possession of the information needed to reach a rational conclusion.
I agree in regards to OB.
I am concerned that LW will fail to maintain that standard.
Does anyone here think otherwise?
Regarding the good Reverend, we stand on the shoulders of giants that came after him, and are lucky enough to find ourselves in a more tolerant environment. And Laplace independently went further than Bayes not that much later, and had no need of that hypothesis.
Did komponisto say that? I read “expect” as descriptive, not normative.
The bit about Rev. Bayes was something of a cheap shot, I admit. My impression has actually been that Bayes himself was a mostly unremarkable scholar (compared to someone like Laplace, that is!) and quite possibly would not even agree with modern Bayesian statistics.
I read it as a bit of both. If I was incorrect to do so, mea culpa and apologies to komponisto.