“So while you can eliminate the word ‘rational’ from “It’s rational to believe the sky is blue”, you can’t eliminate the concept ‘rational’ from the sentence ‘It’s epistemically rational to increase belief in hypotheses that make successful experimental predictions.’”
I’m discussing the usefulness of rationality as a cognitive algorithm in a situation in which other, cheaper, algorithms are available.
Eliminating the word would make this post less clear, not more.
I should have been more specific, but I was really trying to make my entire comment hyperlinkable to all of the threads we have about this.
So to clarify. Yes, your use of the word is pretty appropriate in the body. But it is very, very common for people to sign up on LW, make a post about “Rational Nose Picking” or something like that, and get downvoted into oblivion. So (If I may generalize from one example) most people on LW have a pretty solidly formed aversion to threads written by new members of the form “Rational ___”. This is probably reinforced by the fact that Eliezer wrote an entire metaethics sequence. While you linked to it and are clearly aware of it, people probably are less interested in rehashing issues they feel are already settled. So in summary, I’d recommend you try and come up with a better title and edit it. (Related: We’ve noticed over time the meaning of posts tends to converge to the literal meaning of their title.)
For what it’s worth, given all of the things mentioned in the first paragraph that led me to expect this would be terrible, I found myself agreeing with most of it, although to be honest, I only skimmed. And for what it’s worth, I’ve upvoted it, since I didn’t think it should be below −3.
Grins I’m personally a little bit pleased with the negative karma value, to be perfectly honest. I was being deliberately contrarian.
The title could probably use some work, though, yes. Originally I titled it simply “Metaethics,” but found that this was a bit heavy-handed (and I yanked out the bits actually concerned with metaethics anyways). “The Ethics of Ethics” was another I considered. Any recommendations?
No. I’m challenging people to question beliefs which are, in this context, sacred. If the response was generally positive, it would mean that I either miscalculated my audience or failed. I believe what I wrote here, which is why I wrote it. I just wouldn’t have written it for an audience which already believes it.
(Negative doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve succeeded, however—as you point out, the response could be to other things, such as the title.)
Please don’t use that word.
“So while you can eliminate the word ‘rational’ from “It’s rational to believe the sky is blue”, you can’t eliminate the concept ‘rational’ from the sentence ‘It’s epistemically rational to increase belief in hypotheses that make successful experimental predictions.’”
I’m discussing the usefulness of rationality as a cognitive algorithm in a situation in which other, cheaper, algorithms are available.
Eliminating the word would make this post less clear, not more.
I should have been more specific, but I was really trying to make my entire comment hyperlinkable to all of the threads we have about this.
So to clarify. Yes, your use of the word is pretty appropriate in the body. But it is very, very common for people to sign up on LW, make a post about “Rational Nose Picking” or something like that, and get downvoted into oblivion. So (If I may generalize from one example) most people on LW have a pretty solidly formed aversion to threads written by new members of the form “Rational ___”. This is probably reinforced by the fact that Eliezer wrote an entire metaethics sequence. While you linked to it and are clearly aware of it, people probably are less interested in rehashing issues they feel are already settled. So in summary, I’d recommend you try and come up with a better title and edit it. (Related: We’ve noticed over time the meaning of posts tends to converge to the literal meaning of their title.)
For what it’s worth, given all of the things mentioned in the first paragraph that led me to expect this would be terrible, I found myself agreeing with most of it, although to be honest, I only skimmed. And for what it’s worth, I’ve upvoted it, since I didn’t think it should be below −3.
Grins I’m personally a little bit pleased with the negative karma value, to be perfectly honest. I was being deliberately contrarian.
The title could probably use some work, though, yes. Originally I titled it simply “Metaethics,” but found that this was a bit heavy-handed (and I yanked out the bits actually concerned with metaethics anyways). “The Ethics of Ethics” was another I considered. Any recommendations?
So you’re just trolling?
No. I’m challenging people to question beliefs which are, in this context, sacred. If the response was generally positive, it would mean that I either miscalculated my audience or failed. I believe what I wrote here, which is why I wrote it. I just wouldn’t have written it for an audience which already believes it.
(Negative doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve succeeded, however—as you point out, the response could be to other things, such as the title.)
I think you misunderstand the karma system. Things that challenge our beliefs are upvoted all the time.
I’d challenge that belief. Let the karma count on this comment be my evidence in my favor, or in yours!
Mere saying “challenge” doesn’t constitute a challenge.