In my experience of philosophy, there are very few philosophers at EY’s level.
i don;t see why disagreement would merit a downvote. Isn;t that the whole problem?
You made a claim that I—and, you yourself acknowledged, most LWers - had a low prior for. You did not provide any evidence for this claim. That seems worth a downvote, as long as you don’t provide a disclaimer that you can’t provide your evidence right now or something.
there are very few philosophers at EY’s level.
“Level” meaning credibility by normal standards (ie he as good as Dennett, Chalmers, Parfitt..) or “level” meaning he’s good at being lessWongian because he invented it?
Well, I was impressed by LW, so there’s naturally going to be some correlation.
Level meaning how good he seems at evaluating philosophical arguments, identifying flaws, and mostly avoiding the flaws that seem especially common in philosophy. I’m not sure how abnormal these criteria are, but then normally we’re not talking about FAI.
You provided no evidence for your claims;
Not in the first draft. You downvoted a version with evidence.
One piece of evidence, which, as I noted, is at best extremely weak and misleadingly labelled.
and when you edited your comment.
That’s incomplete. I hardly need point out the problems of making mistakes when you are pointing out mistakes.
Whoops. that should be an ellipsis. Fixed.
The link you gave consists of him clarifying his terminology, and thanking them for interpreting his unclear wording charitably.
So? Philosophy is mostly arguing, and arguing more clearly is arguing better...is better philosophy. Are you saying the link was irrelevant or what?
To the extent that rhetorical skills are uncorrelated with epistemic skills, yes, I am. He’s not trying to persuade the problem, he’s trying to solve it.
Also because it irritates me that this site is scattered with comments at anything from −3 to +15 (not exact figures) that criticize cryonics/ASI/other things lots of us believe in, LW policies, or EY, and then talk about how they’re going to get downvoted into oblivion for speaking out against the consensus.
ETA: But the fist draft was downvoted! As was pretty well everything I have said on the subjecta
But not, I suspect, simply because you’re contradicting the consensus. You have made sweeping claims, not considered likely by most LWers, regarding, among other things, users on this site (which we can all see,) yet you failed to provide examples; your lack of examples is at best unhelpful and at worst … well dishonest or symptomatic of massive bias, whichever of those is “worst”.
Also I am not clear why that is irritating.
Well, they never get called on it, and it promotes misconceptions regarding the site and the karma system specifically.
ETA. But thanks for the comment anyway.
Thank you for replying. I upvoted the reply, incidentally.
Mine.
You made a claim that I—and, you yourself acknowledged, most LWers - had a low prior for. You did not provide any evidence for this claim. That seems worth a downvote, as long as you don’t provide a disclaimer that you can’t provide your evidence right now or something.
Well, I was impressed by LW, so there’s naturally going to be some correlation.
Level meaning how good he seems at evaluating philosophical arguments, identifying flaws, and mostly avoiding the flaws that seem especially common in philosophy. I’m not sure how abnormal these criteria are, but then normally we’re not talking about FAI.
One piece of evidence, which, as I noted, is at best extremely weak and misleadingly labelled.
Whoops. that should be an ellipsis. Fixed.
To the extent that rhetorical skills are uncorrelated with epistemic skills, yes, I am. He’s not trying to persuade the problem, he’s trying to solve it.
But not, I suspect, simply because you’re contradicting the consensus. You have made sweeping claims, not considered likely by most LWers, regarding, among other things, users on this site (which we can all see,) yet you failed to provide examples; your lack of examples is at best unhelpful and at worst … well dishonest or symptomatic of massive bias, whichever of those is “worst”.
Well, they never get called on it, and it promotes misconceptions regarding the site and the karma system specifically.
Thank you for replying. I upvoted the reply, incidentally.