But now I sense an even more disturbing definition: rational as opposed to empirical.
Ummmmmmmm.… no.
The word “rational” is used here on LW in essentially its literal definition (which is not quite the same as its colloquial everyday meaning).… if anything it is perhaps used by some to mean “bayesian”… but bayesianism is all about updating on (empirical) evidence.
According to my dictionary: rationalism 1. Philos. the theory that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge (opp. empiricism, sensationalism)
This is there as well as: rational 1. of or based on reasoning or reason
So although there are other (more everyday) definitions also listed at later numbers, the opposition to empirical is one of the literal definitions. The Bayesian updating thing is why it took me a long time to notice the other anti-scientific tendency.
I wouldn’t say “anti-scientific”—but it certainly would be good if scientists actually studied rationality more—and so were more rational.
With lab equipment like the human brain, you have really got to look into its strengths and weaknesses—and read the manual about how to use it properly.
Personally, when I see material like
Science or Bayes—my brain screams: false dichotomy: Science and Bayes! Don’t turn the scientists into a rival camp: teach them.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Because the group used Bayesian methods, I had assumed that they would not be anti-scientific. I was surprised when it seemed that they were willing to ignore evidence. I have been reassured that many in the group are rational in the everyday sense and not opposed to empiricism. Indeed it is Science AND Bayes.
Ummmmmmmm.… no.
The word “rational” is used here on LW in essentially its literal definition (which is not quite the same as its colloquial everyday meaning).… if anything it is perhaps used by some to mean “bayesian”… but bayesianism is all about updating on (empirical) evidence.
According to my dictionary: rationalism 1. Philos. the theory that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge (opp. empiricism, sensationalism)
This is there as well as: rational 1. of or based on reasoning or reason
So although there are other (more everyday) definitions also listed at later numbers, the opposition to empirical is one of the literal definitions. The Bayesian updating thing is why it took me a long time to notice the other anti-scientific tendency.
I wouldn’t say “anti-scientific”—but it certainly would be good if scientists actually studied rationality more—and so were more rational.
With lab equipment like the human brain, you have really got to look into its strengths and weaknesses—and read the manual about how to use it properly.
Personally, when I see material like Science or Bayes—my brain screams: false dichotomy: Science and Bayes! Don’t turn the scientists into a rival camp: teach them.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Because the group used Bayesian methods, I had assumed that they would not be anti-scientific. I was surprised when it seemed that they were willing to ignore evidence. I have been reassured that many in the group are rational in the everyday sense and not opposed to empiricism. Indeed it is Science AND Bayes.