It’s very good of you to say the writing is good, glad you enjoyed it, and yes will write more here.
Completely agree with you that liberal vs conservative is an overly dualistic and simplistic way to carve up political positions, but for brevity’s sake and to keep on point, described it that way.
Assuming everyone on this forum values the idea of testing their knowledge; not to prove or even disprove their ideas, but to update. probabilities. But why isn’t this method, even a dumbed-down version of it, held in higher regard for progress than debate? Debate is virtually useless to the general public. We already teach the scientific method, but only as applied to the school science fair, instead of a general method for getting to a clearer view of things.
You’re of course completely on the nose about people not having the time and energy to do the actual work on all the issues. So my advice: don’t be a moron. Say you have no opinion. Didn’t read the holy book (either your own or the enemy’s religion)? No opinion. Didn’t read the bill? No opinion. Read no articles from climate science journals? No opinion. Etc.
We already teach the scientific method, but only as applied to the school science fair, instead of a general method for getting to a clearer view of things.
So my advice: don’t be a moron. Say you have no opinion. Didn’t read the holy book (either your own or the enemy’s religion)? No opinion. Didn’t read the bill? No opinion. Read no articles from climate science journals? No opinion. Etc.
Except then your at the mercy of, at best, the people who ignore this advise, or at worst, the people who intentionally made things overly complicated in order to screw you.
For example, why can’t most people read the bill? Because the bill is extremely unnecessarily long. Why is the bill extremely unnecessarily long? The better for the lobbyists to hide all the ways they’re screwing you on behalf of their clients.
There is nothing in the post you linked to that supports your statement that the scientific method is “not a good method for getting a clear view of things”.
(What there is: Eliezer argues for calling things “scientific beliefs” only when they are generalizations endorsed by scientific study, rather than particular statements that follow from those generalizations; and for calling things “science” only when they are publicly known. None of that has any bearing on how well, or how widely, the scientific method is effective in distinguishing truth from error.)
For example, why can’t most people read the bill? Because the bill is extremely unnecessarily long. Why is the bill extremely unnecessarily long? he better for the lobbyists to hide all the ways they’re screwing you on behalf of their clients.
It looks like society needs some specialists who make a living interpreting these things , political journalists maybe.
Yes, and in particular, I can form my opinion based on what others write about it rather than having to say “no opinion” if I haven’t read the bill myself.
Don’t think Eliezer meant to say that the scientific method isn’t awesome for optimizing a truthful view of reality. If he did say that, he’s wrong. Is there a specific case you could make on why it’s not, because didn’t get that from the article you referred to.
Don’t understand your comment about having no opinion when you have no data. I’m reading it as 1) many people won’t dig for data and have strong opinions anyway and 2) obscurity can be used as a weapon to prevent you from forming an informed opinion. Does that describe your comment accurately?
For 1, not sure what the disadvantage you see here … okay ignorant opinions are bountiful. So we should join the club or they’ll …. what?
For 2, if the alternative is to form a strong a opinion without data because someone made it too much work for you to care that much, then they’ve manipulated you more than if you hold no opinion at all … what am I missing?
Don’t think Eliezer meant to say that the scientific method isn’t awesome for optimizing a truthful view of reality.
The scientific method has it’s uses, just as the court system has it’s uses. They both, however, rely on throwing out certain kinds of evidence. And one can’t always afford to ignore said evidence in practice.
For 1, not sure what the disadvantage you see here … okay ignorant opinions are bountiful. So we should join the club or they’ll …. what?
For policy on the basis of their wrong ideas.
For 2, if the alternative is to form a strong a opinion without data because someone made it too much work for you to care that much, then they’ve manipulated you more than if you hold no opinion at all … what am I missing?
I didn’t say one shouldn’t use any data. Simply that one doesn’t have to read the bill to form an opinion about it.
Here are some hints:
Didn’t read the holy book (either your own or the enemy’s religion). =/= having no data about it
Didn’t read the bill. =/= having no data about it
Read no articles from climate science journals. =/= having no data about it
It’s very good of you to say the writing is good, glad you enjoyed it, and yes will write more here.
Completely agree with you that liberal vs conservative is an overly dualistic and simplistic way to carve up political positions, but for brevity’s sake and to keep on point, described it that way.
Assuming everyone on this forum values the idea of testing their knowledge; not to prove or even disprove their ideas, but to update. probabilities. But why isn’t this method, even a dumbed-down version of it, held in higher regard for progress than debate? Debate is virtually useless to the general public. We already teach the scientific method, but only as applied to the school science fair, instead of a general method for getting to a clearer view of things.
You’re of course completely on the nose about people not having the time and energy to do the actual work on all the issues. So my advice: don’t be a moron. Say you have no opinion. Didn’t read the holy book (either your own or the enemy’s religion)? No opinion. Didn’t read the bill? No opinion. Read no articles from climate science journals? No opinion. Etc.
Because it’s not a good method for getting a clear view of things.
Except then your at the mercy of, at best, the people who ignore this advise, or at worst, the people who intentionally made things overly complicated in order to screw you.
For example, why can’t most people read the bill? Because the bill is extremely unnecessarily long. Why is the bill extremely unnecessarily long? The better for the lobbyists to hide all the ways they’re screwing you on behalf of their clients.
There is nothing in the post you linked to that supports your statement that the scientific method is “not a good method for getting a clear view of things”.
(What there is: Eliezer argues for calling things “scientific beliefs” only when they are generalizations endorsed by scientific study, rather than particular statements that follow from those generalizations; and for calling things “science” only when they are publicly known. None of that has any bearing on how well, or how widely, the scientific method is effective in distinguishing truth from error.)
It looks like society needs some specialists who make a living interpreting these things , political journalists maybe.
Yes, and in particular, I can form my opinion based on what others write about it rather than having to say “no opinion” if I haven’t read the bill myself.
Don’t think Eliezer meant to say that the scientific method isn’t awesome for optimizing a truthful view of reality. If he did say that, he’s wrong. Is there a specific case you could make on why it’s not, because didn’t get that from the article you referred to.
Don’t understand your comment about having no opinion when you have no data. I’m reading it as 1) many people won’t dig for data and have strong opinions anyway and 2) obscurity can be used as a weapon to prevent you from forming an informed opinion. Does that describe your comment accurately?
For 1, not sure what the disadvantage you see here … okay ignorant opinions are bountiful. So we should join the club or they’ll …. what? For 2, if the alternative is to form a strong a opinion without data because someone made it too much work for you to care that much, then they’ve manipulated you more than if you hold no opinion at all … what am I missing?
The scientific method has it’s uses, just as the court system has it’s uses. They both, however, rely on throwing out certain kinds of evidence. And one can’t always afford to ignore said evidence in practice.
For policy on the basis of their wrong ideas.
I didn’t say one shouldn’t use any data. Simply that one doesn’t have to read the bill to form an opinion about it.
Here are some hints:
Didn’t read the holy book (either your own or the enemy’s religion). =/= having no data about it
Didn’t read the bill. =/= having no data about it
Read no articles from climate science journals. =/= having no data about it
No, but what data I do have about it is likely to be filtered.
So? The point of the article is not that one should ignore filtered evidence, but that one should adjust for the filter.