In light of how people process answers to such detailed questions, and how the answers are incorporated into the thought patterns—which might end up used in the real world—is it not in fact most rational not to address that kind of question exactly as specified, but to point out [other options in the hypothetical]?
I am in fact, rather happy that I read something on LW, and applied the thought to a different question a couple days later. It makes me feel like an a growing aspiring rationalist who Learns Things.
As I said in that thread, fighting the hypo is not polite behavior.
On the first day of a physics class, you can ask the professor to justify learning physics given the problem of Cartesian skepticism. The professor might have an interesting answer if she decided to engage you. But what would actually happen is that the professor will ask you to leave, because the conversation will not be a physics conversation, and the social norm is that physics classes are for physics conversations.
In short, the practical conversation you are trying to start is not the same as the theoretical one that was started.
The problem is that it doesn’t answer the point of the question. In the least convenient possible world, where we can make the cows but can’t just grow their meat, how would you answer the question?
Isn’t that kind of missing the point of the question?
There was a recent discussion, Rationality of sometimes missing the point of the stated question, and of certain type of defensive reasoning, that contemplated the idea that sometimes it is useful to miss the point of the question. When I read the Eat Smart Cow question, it seemed like the type of question that requires said “missing of point”. Quote below:
I am in fact, rather happy that I read something on LW, and applied the thought to a different question a couple days later. It makes me feel like an a growing aspiring rationalist who Learns Things.
As I said in that thread, fighting the hypo is not polite behavior.
On the first day of a physics class, you can ask the professor to justify learning physics given the problem of Cartesian skepticism. The professor might have an interesting answer if she decided to engage you. But what would actually happen is that the professor will ask you to leave, because the conversation will not be a physics conversation, and the social norm is that physics classes are for physics conversations.
In short, the practical conversation you are trying to start is not the same as the theoretical one that was started.
The problem is that it doesn’t answer the point of the question. In the least convenient possible world, where we can make the cows but can’t just grow their meat, how would you answer the question?