I am quite curious indeed as to how my post is any less topical than the quantum physics post by Eliezer that I linked.
I deliberately didn’t write about anything that would have been foreign to any not-reasonably-scientifically-literate reader. If you disagree, please do point out where.
I do not think that the aether hypothesis was “ridiculous”, and never said that I did. It was wrong, sure, but lots and lots of very smart people believed in it for quite a while. Similarly, I don’t think gravitons are “ridiculous” and never said that they were.
The post being off-topic is not part of my argument. (That being said, if I were arguing that it is off-topic, then being no more offtopic than a given other post is hardly an argument against this post being off-topic in the absolute sense.)
The difference between this post and the quantum mechanics sequence is that this post doesn’t get the readers up to speed, and so if they are not already up to speed, they can’t understand what’s going on (also, you won’t be able to get the readers up to speed on this post via merely a blog sequence—it’s too much work). I said:
Adequately considering the question requires a truckload of special knowledge that most visitors don’t have and that is not associated with the topic of the blog.
If you teach such knowledge on the blog, the argument no longer applies (though if it’s too off-topic, the attempt might not be appreciated). If the knowledge is associated with topic of the blog, readers are expected to have it or seek it (e.g. standard biases). If most of the readers happen to already have the knowledge for whatever reason, then it can be assumed as well (e.g. calculus, because most readers happen to be well-educated).
I deliberately didn’t write about anything that would have been foreign to any not-reasonably-scientifically-literate reader. If you disagree, please do point out where.
You are either expecting too much, or demanding too little. It takes way more than familiarity with the terms to discuss the nature of gravity...
I do not think that the aether hypothesis was “ridiculous”, and never said that I did.
And I never said you did. It wasn’t ridiculous in its time, but it is now, given our state of knowledge, which is the relevant factor in formation of nontechnical connotations.
I am quite curious indeed as to how my post is any less topical than the quantum physics post by Eliezer that I linked.
I deliberately didn’t write about anything that would have been foreign to any not-reasonably-scientifically-literate reader. If you disagree, please do point out where.
I do not think that the aether hypothesis was “ridiculous”, and never said that I did. It was wrong, sure, but lots and lots of very smart people believed in it for quite a while. Similarly, I don’t think gravitons are “ridiculous” and never said that they were.
The post being off-topic is not part of my argument. (That being said, if I were arguing that it is off-topic, then being no more offtopic than a given other post is hardly an argument against this post being off-topic in the absolute sense.)
The difference between this post and the quantum mechanics sequence is that this post doesn’t get the readers up to speed, and so if they are not already up to speed, they can’t understand what’s going on (also, you won’t be able to get the readers up to speed on this post via merely a blog sequence—it’s too much work). I said:
If you teach such knowledge on the blog, the argument no longer applies (though if it’s too off-topic, the attempt might not be appreciated). If the knowledge is associated with topic of the blog, readers are expected to have it or seek it (e.g. standard biases). If most of the readers happen to already have the knowledge for whatever reason, then it can be assumed as well (e.g. calculus, because most readers happen to be well-educated).
You are either expecting too much, or demanding too little. It takes way more than familiarity with the terms to discuss the nature of gravity...
And I never said you did. It wasn’t ridiculous in its time, but it is now, given our state of knowledge, which is the relevant factor in formation of nontechnical connotations.