nyan_sandwich said that the Sequences contain not merely arguments, but knowledge. This implies a rather high level of agreement with the material.
Hm, that’s a little tricky. I happen to agree that they contain much knowledge—they aren’t pure knowledge, there is opinion there, but there is a considerable body of insight and technique useful to a rationalist (that is, useful if you want to be good at arriving at true beliefs or making decisions that achieve your goals). Enough that it makes sense to want debate to continue from that level, rather than from scratch.
However, let’s keep our eyes on the ball—that being the true expectation around here. The expectation is emphatically NOT that people should agree with the material in the Sequences. Merely that we don’t have to re-hash the basics.
Besides, if you manage to read a sequence, understand it, and still disagree, that means your reply is likely to be interesting and highly upvoted.
I am perfectly fine with that, as long as they don’t just say, “read all of the Sequences and then report back when you’re ready”, but rather, “your arguments have already been discussed in depth in the following sequence: $url”. The first sentence merely dismisses the reader; the second one provides useful material.
Hm. Yeah, I wouldn’t want anyone to actually be told “read all the sequences” (and afaik this never happens). It’d be unreasonable to, say, expect people to read the quantum mechanics sequence if they don’t intend to discuss QM interpretations. However, problems like what is evidence and how to avoid common reasoning failures are relevant to pretty much everything, so I think an expectation of having read Map and Territory and Mysterious Answers would be useful.
happen to agree that they contain much knowledge—they aren’t pure knowledge… Enough that it makes sense to want debate to continue from that level, rather than from scratch.
Agreed.
Besides, if you manage to read a sequence, understand it, and still disagree, that means your reply is likely to be interesting and highly upvoted.
I emphatically agree with you there, as well; but by making this site more “phygvfu”, we risk losing this capability.
so I think an expectation of having read Map and Territory and Mysterious Answers would be useful.
I agree that these are very useful concepts in general, but I still maintain that it’s best to provide the links to these posts in context, as opposed to simply locking out anyone who hadn’t read them—which is what nyan_sandwich seems to be suggesting.
Trouble is, I’m not really sure what nyan_sandwich is suggesting, in specific and concrete terms, over and above already existing norms and practices. “I wish we had higher quality debate” is not a mechanism.
Hm, that’s a little tricky. I happen to agree that they contain much knowledge—they aren’t pure knowledge, there is opinion there, but there is a considerable body of insight and technique useful to a rationalist (that is, useful if you want to be good at arriving at true beliefs or making decisions that achieve your goals). Enough that it makes sense to want debate to continue from that level, rather than from scratch.
However, let’s keep our eyes on the ball—that being the true expectation around here. The expectation is emphatically NOT that people should agree with the material in the Sequences. Merely that we don’t have to re-hash the basics.
Besides, if you manage to read a sequence, understand it, and still disagree, that means your reply is likely to be interesting and highly upvoted.
Hm. Yeah, I wouldn’t want anyone to actually be told “read all the sequences” (and afaik this never happens). It’d be unreasonable to, say, expect people to read the quantum mechanics sequence if they don’t intend to discuss QM interpretations. However, problems like what is evidence and how to avoid common reasoning failures are relevant to pretty much everything, so I think an expectation of having read Map and Territory and Mysterious Answers would be useful.
Agreed.
I emphatically agree with you there, as well; but by making this site more “phygvfu”, we risk losing this capability.
I agree that these are very useful concepts in general, but I still maintain that it’s best to provide the links to these posts in context, as opposed to simply locking out anyone who hadn’t read them—which is what nyan_sandwich seems to be suggesting.
Trouble is, I’m not really sure what nyan_sandwich is suggesting, in specific and concrete terms, over and above already existing norms and practices. “I wish we had higher quality debate” is not a mechanism.