The posts from April 2011 are all in negative karma, except for the link to the David Deutsch video (which is a link to a lecture, without a description). The posts from October/November 2017 are currently at 0 or 1 karma points, because downvoting is disabled.
I think that reading the information above already tells a lot.
I am posting this here, because I have myself not noticed the April 2011 articles, so I was under a mistaken impression that this was a new user, completely unfamiliar with local common knowledge. I engaged in a debate… and it had a completely predictable trajectory, that could have been obvious from reading similar debates under the older articles.
That means, during the previous 6 years, this interaction provided zero benefit to both sides. I think we do not need another dozen articles of the same kind.
Some more context: The author is selling a $400 course about (his interpretation of) Popper.
Public announcement: the author already posted quite a lot about the same topic on Less Wrong:
Bayesian Epistemology vs Popper (April 2011)
Popperian Decision making (April 2011)
reply to benelliott about Popper issues (April 2011)
Do people think in a Bayesian or Popperian way? (April 2011)
The Conjunction Fallacy Does Not Exist (April 2011)
David Deutsch on How To Think About The Future (April 2011)
[Link] Reason and Morality: Philosophy Outline with Links for Details (October 2017)
[Link] Simple refutation of the ‘Bayesian’ philosophy of science (November 2017)
Less Wrong Lacks Representatives and Paths Forward (November 2017)
[Link] Open Letter to MIRI + Tons of Interesting Discussion (November 2017)
...and this (November 2017)
The posts from April 2011 are all in negative karma, except for the link to the David Deutsch video (which is a link to a lecture, without a description). The posts from October/November 2017 are currently at 0 or 1 karma points, because downvoting is disabled.
I think that reading the information above already tells a lot.
I am posting this here, because I have myself not noticed the April 2011 articles, so I was under a mistaken impression that this was a new user, completely unfamiliar with local common knowledge. I engaged in a debate… and it had a completely predictable trajectory, that could have been obvious from reading similar debates under the older articles.
That means, during the previous 6 years, this interaction provided zero benefit to both sides. I think we do not need another dozen articles of the same kind.
Some more context: The author is selling a $400 course about (his interpretation of) Popper.