Thank you for this excellent example of a clever arguer. You clearly want Christianity to have a chance in hell, so you invent all kinds of rationalizations to support it. Maybe this should be added to the therefore god exists list, though #298 is already close. I understand now why EY refuses to engage in any discussion with you. There are plenty of fallacies in your post, many pointed out in the comments, but it is pointless to argue about it with you, since you have already written your bottom line and will not budge.
It is depressing that, even after all the posts I’ve written on LessWrong, most readers (judging from the score on this comment) will still assume I am a Christian if I write something that appears pro-Christian. It is also depressing that the key determination of a person’s reaction to an argument seems to be their perceptions of the arguer’s motives.
(I let this comment sit awhile before responding, to see where it went; but now that I’ve provided evidence in other places that I’m not a Christian, my cover is blown.)
Even the LessWronger, trained to spot and avoid biases, still makes the same errors as everyone else, even while consciously thinking about these biases. After 3 years of LessWrong, I don’t see evidence that we’re getting less wrong.
Personally, I downvoted the main post for providing an argument, which you said you felt was the best argument for Christianity, which I felt deserved so little probability mass as to be unworthy of being raised for discussion (as far as I can remember this is the first time I’ve affirmed that I downvoted anything,) but I never assumed that you were Christian.
If I had previously assigned a significant probability to the proposition that you were a Christian, this post would have forced me to revise it downwards, I just thought it was ill considered.
I didn’t downvote the OP, but if I had it wouldn’t have been for appearing pro-Christian; it reads as thoroughly secular, in fact, like a theological version of the pseudo-proofs of absurd mathematical statements (that 1 = 2, for example) you see occasionally in places where math trivia is considered entertaining. It does strike me as an argument likely to shed more heat than light, though.
Even the LessWronger, trained to spot and avoid biases, still makes the same errors as everyone else, even while consciously thinking about these biases. After 3 years of LessWrong, I don’t see evidence that we’re getting less wrong.
I hate to agree with you, but this is actually a valid point. While this site has, on average, a far more civil discourse than your run-of-the-mill internet forum, I am not convinced that the rationality level has perceptibly increased over the years, judging from the comment threads then and now. Even the site’s most prominent and respected contributors occasionally succumb to the standard cognitive biases, as has been pointed out. Apparently the phenomenon of “flash downvoting” in response to a post or comment people dislike is also not imagined.
I wish there were a simple cognitive bias detection algorithm or checklist that a conscientious LWer could employ before posting. Or maybe there is one and I am not aware of it.
I am not convinced that the rationality level has perceptibly increased over the years, judging from the comment threads then and now
My estimation is a decrease, mostly due to dilution of the seed polulation from Eliezer-era OvercomingBias. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Remaining a bastion of the already reasonably rational wouldn’t have made lesswrong particularly useful. I’m willing to put up with a somewhat lower standard if it benefits others.
It is depressing that, even after all the posts I’ve written on LessWrong, most readers (judging from the score on this comment) will still assume I am a Christian if I write something that appears pro-Christian.
Nobody said you were Christian.
Even the LessWronger, trained to spot and avoid biases, still makes the same errors as everyone else, even while consciously thinking about these biases. After 3 years of LessWrong, I don’t see evidence that we’re getting less wrong.
The fact that your accusation of irrationality for Shminux is a blatant error of logic and basic comprehension manages to both undermine your point and support it at the same time. I suppose the fact that you are a far more prominent member of lesswrong than Shminux makes the criticism of lesswrong stronger on net. As does the fact that your comment is positive rather than spiraling into the negative. And this last observation is actually quite troubling.
I don’t think you’re a Christian. I do think you want Christianity to have a chance in hell, because… well, I’m not going to speculate. Meta-contrarianism would be one reason. Everyone voting down shminux, please note that they never said they thought Goetz was a Christian.
Everyone voting down shminux, please also note that they did say:
You clearly want Christianity to have a chance in hell
it is pointless to argue about it with you, since you have already written your bottom line and will not budge
I’ll downvote for those. While I don’t claim Goetz’ treatment of the topic to have been perfect, I don’t see evidence of it necessarily having been motivated by anything else than an honest curious interest in the topic. Claims that he clearly wants Christianity to have a chance or that he wouldn’t be able to change his mind on the topic seem to me to be just as uncalled for as claims that he would be a Christian.
There was definite evidence of this. As I pointed out in my reply the specific numbers picked looked a lot like what one would expect if one had a conscious or unconscious desire for the argument to just barely go through.
You are probably correct that, taken out of the poster’s profile context, one might not
see evidence of it necessarily having been motivated by anything else than an honest curious interest in the topic.
I have my doubts, but in retrospect it looks like my emotions got the better of me, and I concede that my original reply was less neutral than called for. Hey, I’m still new to this rationality thing.
I’m not sure that this conclusion is warranted. This post did not cause me to think you were a christian, in fact I really can’t imagine a christian putting that argument together in that way. Additionally, the argument clearly applies equally to Islam and Judaism, and you state as much while making it.
As for me: I initially voted the post up, thinking it was rated too low, but after further thought removed my upvote; I really don’t think this is a big departure from more normal statements of the wager.
Thank you for this excellent example of a clever arguer. You clearly want Christianity to have a chance in hell, so you invent all kinds of rationalizations to support it. Maybe this should be added to the therefore god exists list, though #298 is already close. I understand now why EY refuses to engage in any discussion with you. There are plenty of fallacies in your post, many pointed out in the comments, but it is pointless to argue about it with you, since you have already written your bottom line and will not budge.
It is depressing that, even after all the posts I’ve written on LessWrong, most readers (judging from the score on this comment) will still assume I am a Christian if I write something that appears pro-Christian. It is also depressing that the key determination of a person’s reaction to an argument seems to be their perceptions of the arguer’s motives.
(I let this comment sit awhile before responding, to see where it went; but now that I’ve provided evidence in other places that I’m not a Christian, my cover is blown.)
Even the LessWronger, trained to spot and avoid biases, still makes the same errors as everyone else, even while consciously thinking about these biases. After 3 years of LessWrong, I don’t see evidence that we’re getting less wrong.
Personally, I downvoted the main post for providing an argument, which you said you felt was the best argument for Christianity, which I felt deserved so little probability mass as to be unworthy of being raised for discussion (as far as I can remember this is the first time I’ve affirmed that I downvoted anything,) but I never assumed that you were Christian.
If I had previously assigned a significant probability to the proposition that you were a Christian, this post would have forced me to revise it downwards, I just thought it was ill considered.
I didn’t downvote the OP, but if I had it wouldn’t have been for appearing pro-Christian; it reads as thoroughly secular, in fact, like a theological version of the pseudo-proofs of absurd mathematical statements (that 1 = 2, for example) you see occasionally in places where math trivia is considered entertaining. It does strike me as an argument likely to shed more heat than light, though.
I hate to agree with you, but this is actually a valid point. While this site has, on average, a far more civil discourse than your run-of-the-mill internet forum, I am not convinced that the rationality level has perceptibly increased over the years, judging from the comment threads then and now. Even the site’s most prominent and respected contributors occasionally succumb to the standard cognitive biases, as has been pointed out. Apparently the phenomenon of “flash downvoting” in response to a post or comment people dislike is also not imagined.
I wish there were a simple cognitive bias detection algorithm or checklist that a conscientious LWer could employ before posting. Or maybe there is one and I am not aware of it.
My estimation is a decrease, mostly due to dilution of the seed polulation from Eliezer-era OvercomingBias. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Remaining a bastion of the already reasonably rational wouldn’t have made lesswrong particularly useful. I’m willing to put up with a somewhat lower standard if it benefits others.
My impression is that the level went up and then down:
OB-era comment threads were bad.
During the first year of LW the posts were good.
Nowadays the posts are bad again.
Nobody said you were Christian.
The fact that your accusation of irrationality for Shminux is a blatant error of logic and basic comprehension manages to both undermine your point and support it at the same time. I suppose the fact that you are a far more prominent member of lesswrong than Shminux makes the criticism of lesswrong stronger on net. As does the fact that your comment is positive rather than spiraling into the negative. And this last observation is actually quite troubling.
I don’t think you’re a Christian. I do think you want Christianity to have a chance in hell, because… well, I’m not going to speculate. Meta-contrarianism would be one reason. Everyone voting down shminux, please note that they never said they thought Goetz was a Christian.
Everyone voting down shminux, please also note that they did say:
I’ll downvote for those. While I don’t claim Goetz’ treatment of the topic to have been perfect, I don’t see evidence of it necessarily having been motivated by anything else than an honest curious interest in the topic. Claims that he clearly wants Christianity to have a chance or that he wouldn’t be able to change his mind on the topic seem to me to be just as uncalled for as claims that he would be a Christian.
There was definite evidence of this. As I pointed out in my reply the specific numbers picked looked a lot like what one would expect if one had a conscious or unconscious desire for the argument to just barely go through.
You are probably correct that, taken out of the poster’s profile context, one might not
I have my doubts, but in retrospect it looks like my emotions got the better of me, and I concede that my original reply was less neutral than called for. Hey, I’m still new to this rationality thing.
I’m not sure that this conclusion is warranted. This post did not cause me to think you were a christian, in fact I really can’t imagine a christian putting that argument together in that way. Additionally, the argument clearly applies equally to Islam and Judaism, and you state as much while making it.
As for me: I initially voted the post up, thinking it was rated too low, but after further thought removed my upvote; I really don’t think this is a big departure from more normal statements of the wager.
The question is not whether or not christianity is true, it’s whether or not you set out to create an argument that christianity should be followed.
So, did you stumble across this argument as a realisation while thinking on other things?
Or did you deliberately set out to create such an argument?
It looks like a deliberately constructed argument to me.
Ooh, #85 is pretty clever.
shminux—For my own education, have you read many of my LessWrong posts?