While I do agree with the general sentiment behind what you are saying (we ought to take to heart the virtue of narrowness), your comment here does give me somewhat of an impression that you do not think very highly of the relevance (to P(doom), for example) of considerations based on anthropics, the doomsday argument, and other related ideas.
Those concepts had not occurred to me in the present context, but no, in general I don’t take anthropics or the doomsday argument seriously. Don’t expect an argument from me to that effect, they just feel obviously wrong and I find them irritating. I’ve read some of the arguments around them, and it is clear that there is not currently a consensus, so I ignore them.
While I do agree with the general sentiment behind what you are saying (we ought to take to heart the virtue of narrowness), your comment here does give me somewhat of an impression that you do not think very highly of the relevance (to P(doom), for example) of considerations based on anthropics, the doomsday argument, and other related ideas.
Is this correct, or am I misreading you?
Those concepts had not occurred to me in the present context, but no, in general I don’t take anthropics or the doomsday argument seriously. Don’t expect an argument from me to that effect, they just feel obviously wrong and I find them irritating. I’ve read some of the arguments around them, and it is clear that there is not currently a consensus, so I ignore them.