But if no one has done that (so there’s no answer to CR they can endorse), then how do they know CR is mistaken?
There are plenty of system of systems of thought out there and there are opportunity costs to spending energy delving into different systems of thoughts. Nothing you did here suggests to me that it’s worthwhile to invest a significant amount of time into delving into CR.
Suppose LW, vaguely defined as it may be, is mistaken on some major points. E.g. Karl Popper refuted induction.
Whether or not individual X did Y is not a major point as far most people on LW are concerned.
Some people I talked with at LW seem to still be developing as intellectuals
Of course, part of the growth mindset is about constantly developing.
No one is responsible for defining an LW school of thought
Creating a School of Thought would violate the idea of keeping identity small. We do sometimes use terms like “aspiring rationalist” or speak of LW but that’s not the focus of our intellectual pursuits. We only use labels like that when they are useful.
When there’s a disagreement, ask yourself: “Suppose hypothetically that I’m wrong and the other guy is right. In what way would I ever find out and learn better?” If there’s no good, realistic answer then you’re bad at paths forward.
We have plenty of discussions where people change their minds.
In one of EY recent posts he described how he updated on String theory physicists knowing more than he previously thought because he took a bet.
Betting has the advantage of letting reality decide what’s right. That’s more important than providing clever arguments in favor of a position and as such it’s valued more highly (or at least we try to value it more highly).
There are plenty of system of systems of thought out there and there are opportunity costs to spending energy delving into different systems of thoughts.
This is addressed in Paths Forward. You’re just plain ignoring what I said. You aren’t engaging with the answers to this that I already provided; you aren’t pointing out where my reasoning was mistaken; you’re just acting like half my ideas don’t exist at all instead of actually arguing with them.
Creating a School of Thought would violate the idea of keeping identity small.
As I explained already, PF is important on an individual basis and you should all individually do it regardless of whether LW does.
Induction was refuted decades ago and you guys aren’t updating and don’t have a mechanism to become less wrong about this.
And I told you that you haven’t made a case that suggests that it’s worth reading.
Induction was refuted decades ago and you guys aren’t updating and don’t have a mechanism to become less wrong about this.
How do you know that we aren’t updating? It seems to me like you are using induction to make that assessment. You observe that we don’t update towards your arguments and you conclude that we don’t update in general.
There are plenty of system of systems of thought out there and there are opportunity costs to spending energy delving into different systems of thoughts. Nothing you did here suggests to me that it’s worthwhile to invest a significant amount of time into delving into CR.
Whether or not individual X did Y is not a major point as far most people on LW are concerned.
Of course, part of the growth mindset is about constantly developing.
Creating a School of Thought would violate the idea of keeping identity small. We do sometimes use terms like “aspiring rationalist” or speak of LW but that’s not the focus of our intellectual pursuits. We only use labels like that when they are useful.
We have plenty of discussions where people change their minds.
In one of EY recent posts he described how he updated on String theory physicists knowing more than he previously thought because he took a bet.
Betting has the advantage of letting reality decide what’s right. That’s more important than providing clever arguments in favor of a position and as such it’s valued more highly (or at least we try to value it more highly).
This is addressed in Paths Forward. You’re just plain ignoring what I said. You aren’t engaging with the answers to this that I already provided; you aren’t pointing out where my reasoning was mistaken; you’re just acting like half my ideas don’t exist at all instead of actually arguing with them.
As I explained already, PF is important on an individual basis and you should all individually do it regardless of whether LW does.
Induction was refuted decades ago and you guys aren’t updating and don’t have a mechanism to become less wrong about this.
And I told you that you haven’t made a case that suggests that it’s worth reading.
How do you know that we aren’t updating? It seems to me like you are using induction to make that assessment. You observe that we don’t update towards your arguments and you conclude that we don’t update in general.