What would it take to show that? It seems to me that isn’t a thing that I could “show”, even in theory, since I’ve found no existing empirical data on Aumann-agreement-type experiments in humans. If you know one, I’d appreciate a comment describing it.
I believe that one of the purposes of LessWrong is to help us gain an understanding of important epistemic issues. Proposing a new way to study the issue and potentially gain insight is therefore important.
I think that your standard implies that LessWrong is like a peer-reviewed journal: A place for people to present completed research programs; not a place for people to cooperate to find answers to difficult problems.
As I’ve said before, it’s not good to apply standards that penalize rigor. If the act of putting equations into a post means that each equation needs to be empirically validated in order to get an upvote, pretty soon nobody is going to put equations into their posts.
I’m perfectly happy to come back and vote this up after I am satisfied that it is good, and I haven’t and won’t vote it down. I think it’s a good idea to seek public comment, but the voting is supposed to indicate posts which are excellent for public consumption—this isn’t, unless it’s the technical first half of a pair of such posts. I want to know that the formalization parallels the reality, and it’s not clear that it does before it is run.
So, you don’t want to vote until you see the results; and I don’t want to waste an entire day writing up the results if few people are interested. Is there a general solution to this general problem?
(The “Part 1” in the title was supposed to indicate that it is the first part of a multi-part post.)
What would it take to show that? It seems to me that isn’t a thing that I could “show”, even in theory, since I’ve found no existing empirical data on Aumann-agreement-type experiments in humans. If you know one, I’d appreciate a comment describing it.
I believe that one of the purposes of LessWrong is to help us gain an understanding of important epistemic issues. Proposing a new way to study the issue and potentially gain insight is therefore important.
I think that your standard implies that LessWrong is like a peer-reviewed journal: A place for people to present completed research programs; not a place for people to cooperate to find answers to difficult problems.
As I’ve said before, it’s not good to apply standards that penalize rigor. If the act of putting equations into a post means that each equation needs to be empirically validated in order to get an upvote, pretty soon nobody is going to put equations into their posts.
I’m perfectly happy to come back and vote this up after I am satisfied that it is good, and I haven’t and won’t vote it down. I think it’s a good idea to seek public comment, but the voting is supposed to indicate posts which are excellent for public consumption—this isn’t, unless it’s the technical first half of a pair of such posts. I want to know that the formalization parallels the reality, and it’s not clear that it does before it is run.
So, you don’t want to vote until you see the results; and I don’t want to waste an entire day writing up the results if few people are interested. Is there a general solution to this general problem?
(The “Part 1” in the title was supposed to indicate that it is the first part of a multi-part post.)
If you are confident in the practical value of your results, I would recommend posting. Otherwise I can’t help you.