There’s a bit of background context here that might not be obvious if you’re coming from other internet communities focusing on rationality or science (especially ones focused on debunking myths).
The way the LessWrong zeitgeist relates to religion/supernatural claims is something like “okay, we agree that supernatural claims are bogus… now what?”. The goal is to build our rationality skills such that they can help solve harder or more novel problems, rather than rehashing most debates about religion.
So the context of this post is less about religion itself, and more about an overall cluster of ways that rationalists/skeptics/etc could still use to improve their own thinking.
>So the context of this post is less about religion itself, and more about an overall cluster of ways that rationalists/skeptics/etc could still use to improve their own thinking.
At best, this line sounds like arguing that this thing that looks like fish is not a fish because of its evolutionary history, method of giving birth, and it has this funny nose on top of its head through with it breathes makes it a mammal, thus not fish—in a world where the most salient definition of fish is functional one, “it is a sea-creature that lives in water and we need boats to get to them”.
However, I do not grant that argument holds. I believe what we have here is more of a shark than a whale, which despite the claims to contrary, are today still called fish. Instead of imparting any lessons, it reads more like argument concerning factuality and history of Judaism and Christianity … because most of all its words are spend talking about specific claims about Judaism, Christianity and their history. A comment answering newcomer wondering about “it seems to me that this article is about fishes in water, I’d like to point out something on that matter” with a claim “welcome to forum! this totally-not-a-shark is actually a whale, which is not a fish, so whatever you pointed out is out of context” feels like … incorrect way to defend it.
Incorrect enough why I think it is worth pointing it out 3 years later. But such things happen when 14 year old posts are rotated as recommendations on frontpage.
Hey FiveMaru, welcome to the forum!
There’s a bit of background context here that might not be obvious if you’re coming from other internet communities focusing on rationality or science (especially ones focused on debunking myths).
The way the LessWrong zeitgeist relates to religion/supernatural claims is something like “okay, we agree that supernatural claims are bogus… now what?”. The goal is to build our rationality skills such that they can help solve harder or more novel problems, rather than rehashing most debates about religion.
So the context of this post is less about religion itself, and more about an overall cluster of ways that rationalists/skeptics/etc could still use to improve their own thinking.
>So the context of this post is less about religion itself, and more about an overall cluster of ways that rationalists/skeptics/etc could still use to improve their own thinking.
At best, this line sounds like arguing that this thing that looks like fish is not a fish because of its evolutionary history, method of giving birth, and it has this funny nose on top of its head through with it breathes makes it a mammal, thus not fish—in a world where the most salient definition of fish is functional one, “it is a sea-creature that lives in water and we need boats to get to them”.
However, I do not grant that argument holds. I believe what we have here is more of a shark than a whale, which despite the claims to contrary, are today still called fish. Instead of imparting any lessons, it reads more like argument concerning factuality and history of Judaism and Christianity … because most of all its words are spend talking about specific claims about Judaism, Christianity and their history. A comment answering newcomer wondering about “it seems to me that this article is about fishes in water, I’d like to point out something on that matter” with a claim “welcome to forum! this totally-not-a-shark is actually a whale, which is not a fish, so whatever you pointed out is out of context” feels like … incorrect way to defend it.
Incorrect enough why I think it is worth pointing it out 3 years later. But such things happen when 14 year old posts are rotated as recommendations on frontpage.