It seems to me that as long as something is dressed in a sufficiently “sciency” language and endorsed by high status members of the community, a sizable number (though not necessarily a majority) of lesswrongers will buy into it.
I’d still really love a better term than that. One that doesn’t use the R-word at all, if possible. (“Neorationalism” is tempting but similarly well below ideal.)
Since that is exactly what is being claimed about it, one might as well put it in the name. It does use the R-word, but only to negate it, which is the point. “New rationalism” suggests there is something wrong with actually being rational, which I hope isn’t anyone’s intention in this thread.
Trouble is that echoes “pseudoskeptic”, which is a term that should be useful but is overwhelmingly used only by those upset at their personal toe being stepped on (“critiquing me? You’re doing skepticism wrong!”), to the point where it’s a pretty useful crank detector.
That is not a problem with the word but the thing. It does not matter what opposition to bad skepticism is called. If it exists as a definite idea, it will acquire a name, and whatever name it is called by will be used in that way.
“New rationalism” is even worse: the name suggests not that there is such a thing as bad reasoning, but that reasoning is bad.
Perhaps a better idea would be to not call it anything, nor make of it a thing. Instead, someone dissatisfied with how it is being done on LW might more fruitfully devote their energies to demonstrating how to do it better.
a term that should be useful but is overwhelmingly used only by those upset at their personal toe being stepped on (“critiquing me? You’re doing skepticism wrong!”), to the point where it’s a pretty useful crank detector.
Well, isn’t that a self-evidently dangerous heuristic. (“Critiquing me? You’re just doing the calling-me-a-pseudoskeptic crank behavior!”)
I don’t think that either armchair evopsych or the paleo movement are characterised by meta reasoning. Most individuals who believe in those things aren’t on LW.
I use the term “new rationalism”.
I’d still really love a better term than that. One that doesn’t use the R-word at all, if possible. (“Neorationalism” is tempting but similarly well below ideal.)
“Pseudo-rationalism.”
Since that is exactly what is being claimed about it, one might as well put it in the name. It does use the R-word, but only to negate it, which is the point. “New rationalism” suggests there is something wrong with actually being rational, which I hope isn’t anyone’s intention in this thread.
Trouble is that echoes “pseudoskeptic”, which is a term that should be useful but is overwhelmingly used only by those upset at their personal toe being stepped on (“critiquing me? You’re doing skepticism wrong!”), to the point where it’s a pretty useful crank detector.
That is not a problem with the word but the thing. It does not matter what opposition to bad skepticism is called. If it exists as a definite idea, it will acquire a name, and whatever name it is called by will be used in that way.
“New rationalism” is even worse: the name suggests not that there is such a thing as bad reasoning, but that reasoning is bad.
Perhaps a better idea would be to not call it anything, nor make of it a thing. Instead, someone dissatisfied with how it is being done on LW might more fruitfully devote their energies to demonstrating how to do it better.
Well, isn’t that a self-evidently dangerous heuristic. (“Critiquing me? You’re just doing the calling-me-a-pseudoskeptic crank behavior!”)
I don’t think that either armchair evopsych or the paleo movement are characterised by meta reasoning. Most individuals who believe in those things aren’t on LW.