What official LW positions would you expect there to be errata for?
I’m specifically referencing RAZ/ the Sequences. Maybe theyre objectively perfect, and nothing of significance has happened in ten years..
As I’m forever pointing out, there are good objections to many of the postings in the sequences from well informed people , to be found in the comment s...but no one has admitted that a single one is actually right, no one has attempted to go back and answer them, and they simply disappear from RAZ.
OK, we have a bit of a move in the direction of actually providing some concrete information here, which is nice, but it’s still super-vague.
Also, your complaint now seems to be entirely different from your original complaint. Before, you were saying that LW should be expected to “shoot the messenger”. Now, you’re saying that LW ignores the messenger. Also bad if true, of course, but it’s an entirely different failure mode.
So, anyway, I thought I’d try a bit of an experiment. I’m picking random articles from the “Original Sequences” (as listed in the LW wiki), then starting reading the comments at a random place and finding the first substantial objection after there (wrapping round to the start if necessary). Let’s see what we find.
“Timeless Identity”: user poke says EY is attacking a strawman when he points out that fundamental particles aren’t distinguishable, because no one ever thinks that our identity is constituted by the identity of our atoms, because everyone knows that we eat and excrete and so forth.
In the post itself, EY quotes no less a thinker than Derek Parfit arguing that maybe the difference between “numerical identity” and “qualitative identity” might be significant, so it can’t be that strawy; and the point of the post is not simply to argue against the idea that our identity is constituted by the identity of our atoms. So I rate this objection not terribly strong. It doesn’t seem to have provoked any sort of correction, nor do I see why it should have; but it also doesn’t seem to have provoked any sort of messenger-shooting; it’s sitting at +12.
“Words as Hidden Inferences”: not much substantive disagreement. Nearest I can find is a couple of complaints from user Caledonian2, both of which I think are merely nitpicks.
“The Sacred Mundane”: user Capla disagrees with EY’s statement that when you start with religion and take away the concrete errors of fact etc., all you have left is pointless vagueness. No, Capla says, there’s also an urge towards heroic moral goodness, which you don’t really find anywhere else.
Seems like a reasonable counterpoint. Doesn’t seem like it got much attention, which is a shame; I think there could have been an interesting discussion there.
“The Sacred Mundane” is one of the posts shown on the “Original Sequences” page in italics to indicate that it’s “relatively unimportant”. I assume it isn’t in RAZ. I doubt that’s because of Capla’s objection.
“Why Truth?”: not much substantive disagreement.
“Nonperson Predicates”: not much substantive disagreement, and this feels like a sufficiently peripheral issue anyway that I couldn’t muster much energy to look in detail at the few disagreements there were.
“The Proper Use of Doubt”: a few people suggest in comments that (contra what EY says in the post) there is potential value even in doubts that never get resolved. I think they’re probably right, but again this is a peripheral point (since I think I agree with EY that the main point of doubting a thing you believe is to prompt you to investigate enough that you either stop believing it or confirm your belief in it) on a rather peripheral post.
Not terribly surprisingly (on either your opinions or mine, I think), this random exploration hasn’t turned up anything with a credible claim to be a demolition of something important to LW thinking. It also hasn’t turned up anything that looks to me like messenger-shooting, or like failing to address important major criticisms, and my guess at this point is that if there are examples of those then finding them is going to need more effort than I want to put in. Especially as you claim you’ve already got those examples! Please, share some of them with me.
I previously gave you a short list of key ideas. Auman, Bayes, Solomonoff, and so on.
Now, you’re saying that LW ignores the messenger. Also bad if true, of course, but it’s an entirely different failure mode.
No, it’s not very different. Shooting the messenger, ignoring the messenger, and and quietly updating without admitting it, are all ways that confirmation bias manifests. Aren’t you supposed to know about this stuff?
Yes, you gave me a “short list of key ideas”. So all I have to do to find out what you’re actually talking about is to go through everything anyone has ever written about those ideas, and find the bits that refute positions widely accepted on Less Wrong.
This is not actually helpful. Especially as nothing you’ve said so far gives me very much confidence that the examples you’re talking about actually exist; one simple explanation for your refusal to provide concrete examples is that you don’t actually have any.
I’ve put substantial time and effort into this discussion. It doesn’t seem to me as if you have the slightest interest in doing likewise; you’re just making accusation after accusation, consistently refusing to provide any details or evidence, completely ignoring anything I say unless it provides an opportunity for another cheap shot, moving the goalposts at every turn.
I don’t know whether you’re actually trolling, or what. But I am not interested in continuing this unless you provide some actual concrete examples to engage with. Do so, and I’ll take a look. But if all you want to do is sneer and whine, I’ve had enough of playing along.
I’m specifically referencing RAZ/ the Sequences. Maybe theyre objectively perfect, and nothing of significance has happened in ten years..
As I’m forever pointing out, there are good objections to many of the postings in the sequences from well informed people , to be found in the comment s...but no one has admitted that a single one is actually right, no one has attempted to go back and answer them, and they simply disappear from RAZ.
OK, we have a bit of a move in the direction of actually providing some concrete information here, which is nice, but it’s still super-vague.
Also, your complaint now seems to be entirely different from your original complaint. Before, you were saying that LW should be expected to “shoot the messenger”. Now, you’re saying that LW ignores the messenger. Also bad if true, of course, but it’s an entirely different failure mode.
So, anyway, I thought I’d try a bit of an experiment. I’m picking random articles from the “Original Sequences” (as listed in the LW wiki), then starting reading the comments at a random place and finding the first substantial objection after there (wrapping round to the start if necessary). Let’s see what we find.
“Timeless Identity”: user poke says EY is attacking a strawman when he points out that fundamental particles aren’t distinguishable, because no one ever thinks that our identity is constituted by the identity of our atoms, because everyone knows that we eat and excrete and so forth.
In the post itself, EY quotes no less a thinker than Derek Parfit arguing that maybe the difference between “numerical identity” and “qualitative identity” might be significant, so it can’t be that strawy; and the point of the post is not simply to argue against the idea that our identity is constituted by the identity of our atoms. So I rate this objection not terribly strong. It doesn’t seem to have provoked any sort of correction, nor do I see why it should have; but it also doesn’t seem to have provoked any sort of messenger-shooting; it’s sitting at +12.
“Words as Hidden Inferences”: not much substantive disagreement. Nearest I can find is a couple of complaints from user Caledonian2, both of which I think are merely nitpicks.
“The Sacred Mundane”: user Capla disagrees with EY’s statement that when you start with religion and take away the concrete errors of fact etc., all you have left is pointless vagueness. No, Capla says, there’s also an urge towards heroic moral goodness, which you don’t really find anywhere else.
Seems like a reasonable counterpoint. Doesn’t seem like it got much attention, which is a shame; I think there could have been an interesting discussion there.
“The Sacred Mundane” is one of the posts shown on the “Original Sequences” page in italics to indicate that it’s “relatively unimportant”. I assume it isn’t in RAZ. I doubt that’s because of Capla’s objection.
“Why Truth?”: not much substantive disagreement.
“Nonperson Predicates”: not much substantive disagreement, and this feels like a sufficiently peripheral issue anyway that I couldn’t muster much energy to look in detail at the few disagreements there were.
“The Proper Use of Doubt”: a few people suggest in comments that (contra what EY says in the post) there is potential value even in doubts that never get resolved. I think they’re probably right, but again this is a peripheral point (since I think I agree with EY that the main point of doubting a thing you believe is to prompt you to investigate enough that you either stop believing it or confirm your belief in it) on a rather peripheral post.
Not terribly surprisingly (on either your opinions or mine, I think), this random exploration hasn’t turned up anything with a credible claim to be a demolition of something important to LW thinking. It also hasn’t turned up anything that looks to me like messenger-shooting, or like failing to address important major criticisms, and my guess at this point is that if there are examples of those then finding them is going to need more effort than I want to put in. Especially as you claim you’ve already got those examples! Please, share some of them with me.
At least I’ve got you thinking.
I previously gave you a short list of key ideas. Auman, Bayes, Solomonoff, and so on.
No, it’s not very different. Shooting the messenger, ignoring the messenger, and and quietly updating without admitting it, are all ways that confirmation bias manifests. Aren’t you supposed to know about this stuff?
Yes, you gave me a “short list of key ideas”. So all I have to do to find out what you’re actually talking about is to go through everything anyone has ever written about those ideas, and find the bits that refute positions widely accepted on Less Wrong.
This is not actually helpful. Especially as nothing you’ve said so far gives me very much confidence that the examples you’re talking about actually exist; one simple explanation for your refusal to provide concrete examples is that you don’t actually have any.
I’ve put substantial time and effort into this discussion. It doesn’t seem to me as if you have the slightest interest in doing likewise; you’re just making accusation after accusation, consistently refusing to provide any details or evidence, completely ignoring anything I say unless it provides an opportunity for another cheap shot, moving the goalposts at every turn.
I don’t know whether you’re actually trolling, or what. But I am not interested in continuing this unless you provide some actual concrete examples to engage with. Do so, and I’ll take a look. But if all you want to do is sneer and whine, I’ve had enough of playing along.