Very good. I think, in fact, that people—especially highly educated people—have adopted rationality into a part of their identity, even though they haven’t done so to a nearly sufficiently high degree. Ever since the scientific revolution, people have become more and more willing to give rational arguments for their views.
This is just one way of many in which I think Less Wrong, CFAR etc do not constitute a break with what is here termed traditional rationality, but continuous with it. Sure, there are plenty of new and very interesting ideas developed here, but by and large, Less Wrong is a branch of the great rationalist tree. That’s something to be proud of, in my view, because that tree is humanitiy’s greatest achievement.
That said, I’m all for making people adopt rationality into a part of their identity to a higher degree. In fact, my present work in philosophy is partly concerned with strategies for making this happen. I’m sure there are many such strategies and they should be extensively studied.
Very good. I think, in fact, that people—especially highly educated people—have adopted rationality into a part of their identity, even though they haven’t done so to a nearly sufficiently high degree. Ever since the scientific revolution, people have become more and more willing to give rational arguments for their views.
This is just one way of many in which I think Less Wrong, CFAR etc do not constitute a break with what is here termed traditional rationality, but continuous with it. Sure, there are plenty of new and very interesting ideas developed here, but by and large, Less Wrong is a branch of the great rationalist tree. That’s something to be proud of, in my view, because that tree is humanitiy’s greatest achievement.
That said, I’m all for making people adopt rationality into a part of their identity to a higher degree. In fact, my present work in philosophy is partly concerned with strategies for making this happen. I’m sure there are many such strategies and they should be extensively studied.