I now regard the sequences as a memetic hazard, one which may at the end of the day be doing more harm than good.
To your own cognition, or just to that of others?
I just got here. I have no experience with the issues you cite, but it strikes me that disengagement does not, in general, change society. If you think ideas, as presented, are wrong—show the evidence, debate, fight the good fight. This is probably one of the few places it might actually be acceptable—you can’t lurk on religious boards and try to convince them of things, they mostly cannot or will not listen, but I suspect/hope most here do?
I actually agree, a lot of the philosophy tips over to woo woo and sophistry—but it is perhaps better to light a candle than curse the dark.
what is taught by the sequences is a form of flawed truth-seeking (thought experiments favored over real world experiments) which inevitably results in errors,
Well—let’s fix it then! I tend to agree, I see rationalism as only one of many useful tools. I would add formal Logic, and Science (refinement via experiment—do those sequences actually suggest that experiment is unnecessary somehow? I’d love to see it, could use the laugh. ) and perhaps even foggy things like “experience” (I find I do not control, to a large extent, my own problem solving and thought processes nearly as well as I would imagine). The good carpenter has many tools, and uses the appropriate ones at the appropriate time.
Or is this one of those academic “we need to wait for the old guard to die off” things? If so, again, providing a counterpoint for those interested in truth as opposed to dogma seems like a fun thing to do. But I’m weird that way. (I strongly believe in the value of re-examination of what we hold true, for refinement or discarding if it no longer fits reality, as well as for personal growth—so the idea of sequences that people take as gospel of sorts is simply argument from authority to mock unless it stands up to critical analysis)
But within the LessWrong community there is actually outright hostility to...
Ghandi said “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
...but he was pretty pragmatic for a philosopher. If you get hostility to ideas, that means they’re listening, which means you actually have some chance of causing reform, if that is a goal. If you are not willing to piss off a few people in the name of truth… well, I understand. We get tired, and human beings do not generally seek confrontation continually (or at least the ones who survive and reproduce do not). But if your concern is that they are hostile toward ideas that more effectively help humanity, disengagement isn’t gonna change that, although it may help your own sanity.
To your own cognition, or just to that of others?
I just got here. I have no experience with the issues you cite, but it strikes me that disengagement does not, in general, change society. If you think ideas, as presented, are wrong—show the evidence, debate, fight the good fight. This is probably one of the few places it might actually be acceptable—you can’t lurk on religious boards and try to convince them of things, they mostly cannot or will not listen, but I suspect/hope most here do?
I actually agree, a lot of the philosophy tips over to woo woo and sophistry—but it is perhaps better to light a candle than curse the dark.
Well—let’s fix it then! I tend to agree, I see rationalism as only one of many useful tools. I would add formal Logic, and Science (refinement via experiment—do those sequences actually suggest that experiment is unnecessary somehow? I’d love to see it, could use the laugh. ) and perhaps even foggy things like “experience” (I find I do not control, to a large extent, my own problem solving and thought processes nearly as well as I would imagine). The good carpenter has many tools, and uses the appropriate ones at the appropriate time.
Or is this one of those academic “we need to wait for the old guard to die off” things? If so, again, providing a counterpoint for those interested in truth as opposed to dogma seems like a fun thing to do. But I’m weird that way. (I strongly believe in the value of re-examination of what we hold true, for refinement or discarding if it no longer fits reality, as well as for personal growth—so the idea of sequences that people take as gospel of sorts is simply argument from authority to mock unless it stands up to critical analysis)
Ghandi said “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
...but he was pretty pragmatic for a philosopher. If you get hostility to ideas, that means they’re listening, which means you actually have some chance of causing reform, if that is a goal. If you are not willing to piss off a few people in the name of truth… well, I understand. We get tired, and human beings do not generally seek confrontation continually (or at least the ones who survive and reproduce do not). But if your concern is that they are hostile toward ideas that more effectively help humanity, disengagement isn’t gonna change that, although it may help your own sanity.