Court_Merrigan

Karma: 56

Court_Merrigan 21 Mar 2009 5:52 UTC
2 points
in reply to: nazgulnarsil’s comment on: Rationalist Poetry Fans, Unite!
Sorry, Nazgul. That makes no sense.

Court_Merrigan 21 Mar 2009 5:50 UTC
0 points
in reply to: rhollerith’s comment on: Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate
I don’t know how long you’ve held the position, or much care—I don’t think it’s relevant. But it is signaling, I think, for 2 reasons:
- Your public concern with saying it’s not signaling is just a way of signaling;
- Claiming a certain timespan of belief is just an old locker room way of saying “I got here first.” Which surely is signaling.
This is the sort of thing that causes unnecessary splintering in groups. I have a very visceral reaction to this sort of signaling (which I would label preening, actually). Perhaps I should examine that.

Court_Merrigan 21 Mar 2009 2:35 UTC
0 points
in reply to: prase’s comment on: Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate
You didn’t read Eliezer’s post very carefully, did you? You need more practice in agreement and conformity. There are a limited number of “right” answers out there. It’s alright to agree on them, when they are found.

Court_Merrigan 21 Mar 2009 2:33 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: rhollerith’s comment on: Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate
I don’t believe you.

Court_Merrigan 21 Mar 2009 2:32 UTC
6 points
in reply to: Cameron_Taylor’s comment on: Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate
That would be a great feature, I think. Ditto on on broad disagreements.

Court_Merrigan 21 Mar 2009 1:12 UTC
6 points
on: Rationalist Poetry Fans, Unite!
How about some amusing ‘beat’ poetry? Storm, Tim Minchin

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 6:24 UTC
1 point
in reply to: MichaelVassar’s comment on: Rationalist Poetry Fans, Unite!
Other than the misspelling, absolutely—Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus)

On the Nature of Things:

A highlight:

This terror, then, this darkness of the mind, Not sunrise with its flaring spokes of light, Nor glittering arrows of morning can disperse, But only Nature’s aspect and her law, Which, teaching us, hath this exordium: Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 6:19 UTC
1 point
in reply to: MBlume’s comment on: Rationalist Fiction
Did see Reading Rainbow, although I think this was later … late 80s?. We had Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego as a computer game, late 80s, also, I believe. The game was boring as sin.

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 6:18 UTC
0 points
on: Little Johny Bayesian
Nice work. Clean up the meter and I’ll print it out to read to my daughter. You can never start ’em too young.

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 4:18 UTC
2 points
in reply to: MBlume’s comment on: Rationalist Fiction
3-2-1 Contact—that was the name of that show—not the Electric Company. That’s the bad 80s hit, isn’t it …?

I don’t remember seeing anything called Mathnet. My 3-2-1 Contact memories are roughly 1980-1984, somewhere thereabouts. Yours?

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 3:54 UTC
2 points
in reply to: MBlume’s comment on: Rationalist Fiction
I believe the segment on the Electric Company is where that group derived its name. Although I’m not sure. No taste for that sort of thing.

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 2:39 UTC
11 points
on: Rationalist Fiction
How about The Hardy Boys? I read dozens of these as a young kid, and the thing that stands out in mind now is, there was always an answer to the mystery, one that could be arrived at via clues and deduction. Looking back now, I think they had a major impact on my manner of thinking, reading them as young as I did (kindergarten and 1st grade, I’m talking) such that years later I was inclined to look favorably upon a ‘rationality technique’ when I encountered the idea of one on OB.

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 2:35 UTC
2 points
in reply to: billswift’s comment on: Rationalist Fiction
Agree that fiction that relies solely on spoilers isn’t worth reading. Though I would not concur that textbooks are better than any fiction. Unless school has gotten waaaaaay better than I remember.

Court_Merrigan 20 Mar 2009 2:34 UTC
6 points
in reply to: MichaelVassar’s comment on: Rationalist Fiction
Scooby Doo, absolutely. The mystery was always solved; the reason was always given.

How about The Bloodhound Gang on that PBS show Electric Company? Same formula as Scooby Doo.

Although admittedly this is not fiction, exactly.

Court_Merrigan 18 Mar 2009 2:15 UTC
2 points
in reply to: MBlume’s comment on: Rational Me or We?
Exactly. Descartes laid the foundation for future progress.

Court_Merrigan 18 Mar 2009 2:14 UTC
4 points
in reply to: scientism’s comment on: Rational Me or We?
To take one example: Aristotle laid down the foundation of what became modern science. Modern science became modern science as we think of it by rebelling against Aristotle’s a priori assumptions; without Aristotle, what science we have today would be very different, indeed.

I don’t think you can so easily dismiss Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, et al: without them we we wouldn’t be where we are today.

This is part of the problem I often detected at OB and see again here at LW: people with little respect for intellectual history.

Court_Merrigan 18 Mar 2009 2:09 UTC
1 point
in reply to: anonym’s comment on: Rational Me or We?
Hear, hear. Practice and practical techniques. Isn’t that what we’re after here?

Court_Merrigan 18 Mar 2009 2:07 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Roko’s comment on: Rational Me or We?
But there are simply far too many areas of life involving putative “orthonormally diagonalizable matrices” for any one individual to be able to rationally investigate. At some point you have to take someone’s word for it; so rather than taking one expert’s word, you’re likely better off trusting a community of experts. A current example might be with global warming—most scientists seem to feel it’s a major issue.

Unfortunately, though, radical changes in thinking come usually come from the margin, e.g., Galileo. The hard part, it seems to me, is to distinguish between mere status quo convention and genuine expert agreement.

Court_Merrigan 17 Mar 2009 3:12 UTC
2 points
in reply to: JulianMorrison’s comment on: The Tragedy of the Anticommons
I wouldn’t say you need to repeal patents entirely. Just limit them better, and enforce those limitations. Same with copyrights.

Court_Merrigan 17 Mar 2009 3:10 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: The Tragedy of the Anticommons
Agreed. Discussions of dogmatisms such as libertarianism in any of its forms is boring, boring, boring and now what I’d like to read here.

Not that the original post here is an example of that, per se, although I think it comes close.