How much time do we spend coming up with excuses not to critically investigate claims, and at what point do we critically investigate the claims?
That would be a question of “value of information”, which actually I think is a somewhat neglected topic in LW’s collective writings on rationality.
But I get the impression that you’re asking this not as an interesting general question, but because you think some category of claim isn’t being critically investigated as it should be, and that people are coming up with excuses instead of doing so. If so, would you like to say briefly and clearly what claims you think those are and what your reasons are for thinking they’re being avoided?
What type of rationalists aren’t critical?
Dunno. You say that as if there are people declaring proudly that they are non-critical rationalists, but I don’t see that. Again, could you be more explicit?
But I get the impression that you’re asking this not as an interesting general question, but because you think some category of claim isn’t being critically investigated as it should be, and that people are coming up with excuses instead of doing so.
If I drew attention to several claims, and in the rare and unprecedented circumstance you actually agreed with me, then all that would do is prove those several claims needed more critical examination.
My point is we shouldn’t be afraid to critically examine everything.
Any we shouldn’t be afraid of developing a child’s critical thinking skills, and we don’t need to teach them to trust our knoweldge. (If our knowledge is any good, they’ll trust it for their own reasons.)
(If you really want an example, that idea that inflation creates the entire cosmic web in a trillionith of a picosecond is a good start.)
And we shouldn’t be afraid of developing a child’s critical thinking skills
Who, please, is saying that we should be afraid of developing a child’s critical thinking skills, and in what context?
that idea that inflation creates the entire cosmic web in a trillionth of a picosecond
I’ve no problem with examining that critically, but I think this is an exercise best done by professional theoretical physicists, whose current position appears to me to be that it’s probably right. (Though not that it’s necessarily well described by the words you happened to use.) If you disagree with that, would you like to say what you consider stronger evidence against taking inflation seriously than the rough consensus of theoretical physicists is for taking it seriously?
(For clarity: I am not claiming, nor do I believe, that there is anything like unanimity among theoretical physicists that inflation is correct. Neither do I claim it’s definitely correct. The usual position appears to me to be that it gives a description of the early universe that fits a lot of otherwise puzzling observations, but that in the absence of more direct evidence than we seem likely to get any time soon we can’t upgrade it much beyond “plausible and a reasonable working hypothesis”. Is that what you’re objecting to, or are you objecting to some much stronger claim of certainty and if so who’s making that claim?)
If I drew attention to several claims, and in the rare and unprecedented circumstance you actually agreed with me, then all that would do is prove those several claims needed more critical examination.
Do you agree that 2+2=4? So do I. Under that logic, that claim needs more critical examination.
If you really want an example, that idea that inflation creates the entire cosmic web in a trillionith of a picosecond is a good start.
This is the second time you’ve criticized inflation. What is your objection to inflation other than that it doesn’t fit your intuition? Human intuition works very well on the medium scale, not so much on the very small or very large scales.
I wrote the part about YEC and inflation before realizing he meant inflation in another sense.
But I think that just draws attention to the question.
How much time do we spend coming up with excuses not to critically investigate claims, and at what point do we critically investigate the claims?
I consider myself a critical rationalist, ala Karl Popper.
What type of rationalists aren’t critical? Non-critical rationalists? Selectively critical rationalists?
Why select when you are going to think critically and when you are not? Why not think critically all the time?
That would be a question of “value of information”, which actually I think is a somewhat neglected topic in LW’s collective writings on rationality.
But I get the impression that you’re asking this not as an interesting general question, but because you think some category of claim isn’t being critically investigated as it should be, and that people are coming up with excuses instead of doing so. If so, would you like to say briefly and clearly what claims you think those are and what your reasons are for thinking they’re being avoided?
Dunno. You say that as if there are people declaring proudly that they are non-critical rationalists, but I don’t see that. Again, could you be more explicit?
Limited resources.
If I drew attention to several claims, and in the rare and unprecedented circumstance you actually agreed with me, then all that would do is prove those several claims needed more critical examination.
My point is we shouldn’t be afraid to critically examine everything.
Any we shouldn’t be afraid of developing a child’s critical thinking skills, and we don’t need to teach them to trust our knoweldge. (If our knowledge is any good, they’ll trust it for their own reasons.)
(If you really want an example, that idea that inflation creates the entire cosmic web in a trillionith of a picosecond is a good start.)
Who is saying otherwise? (This seems rather like a rhetorical technique Tooby and Cosmides accuse Stephen Jay Gould of using: “But I tell you the sun really does rise in the east”.)
Who, please, is saying that we should be afraid of developing a child’s critical thinking skills, and in what context?
I’ve no problem with examining that critically, but I think this is an exercise best done by professional theoretical physicists, whose current position appears to me to be that it’s probably right. (Though not that it’s necessarily well described by the words you happened to use.) If you disagree with that, would you like to say what you consider stronger evidence against taking inflation seriously than the rough consensus of theoretical physicists is for taking it seriously?
(For clarity: I am not claiming, nor do I believe, that there is anything like unanimity among theoretical physicists that inflation is correct. Neither do I claim it’s definitely correct. The usual position appears to me to be that it gives a description of the early universe that fits a lot of otherwise puzzling observations, but that in the absence of more direct evidence than we seem likely to get any time soon we can’t upgrade it much beyond “plausible and a reasonable working hypothesis”. Is that what you’re objecting to, or are you objecting to some much stronger claim of certainty and if so who’s making that claim?)
Do you agree that 2+2=4? So do I. Under that logic, that claim needs more critical examination.
This is the second time you’ve criticized inflation. What is your objection to inflation other than that it doesn’t fit your intuition? Human intuition works very well on the medium scale, not so much on the very small or very large scales.