Can you construct a sound logical argument? Will you reconsider if someone points out an inconsistency or logical fallacy in your argument?
Yes to both.
Did you ever feel there was something weird about free will? Did you believe in souls? Did you know where morality comes from? Did you intuitively grasp the notion that simpler explanations are better?
Hadn’t thought about any of those things.
Did you strongly feel that beliefs must be based in evidence, and did you understand what constituted good evidence?
Now imagine if you couldn’t do one of those things. For example, suppose you didn’t strongly feel that every belief had to be based in logic or evidence, and instead had ideas about believing some things on simple faith.
Wouldn’t the entire premise of this site just seem misguided and weird? Isn’t there a huge gap in philosophical skill between you and a person who believes in faith?
I know scientists, doctors, and lawyers who believe in faith. They are smart people with tons of human capital.
I guess the central point is that, human capital wise, there are diminishing returns on building philosophical soundness. The level at which you’d have to be at to even start reading lesswrong is already the level at which additional improvement probably won’t make a difference human-capital wise.
So while Lesswrong is certainly an extremely worthwhile thing to participate in, it’s not a college substitute. (that’s not to say that there aren’t auto-didactic practices that adequately replace college—just that lesswrong by itself is definitely not such a thing).
Wouldn’t the entire premise of this site just seem misguided and weird? Isn’t there a huge gap in philosophical skill between you and a person who believes in faith?
I think most smart people who do have a concept of faith can imagine that there are people who don’t and engage in arguments with them.
Don’t confuse the positions that someone takes with his general skill level in navigating arguments.
Don’t confuse the positions that someone takes with his general skill level in navigating arguments.
I didn’t intend to communicate that.
I meant to communicate that logical thinking and evaluating arguments is a level one skill, while understanding the nature of evidence and parsimony is a level two skill.
Having “faith” means that your skill level in philosophy doesn’t exceed level one, however well you may have mastered level one (well, maybe not strictly true since you can derive notions of parsimony from logic)
Yes to both.
Hadn’t thought about any of those things.
Yes and yes.
Now imagine if you couldn’t do one of those things. For example, suppose you didn’t strongly feel that every belief had to be based in logic or evidence, and instead had ideas about believing some things on simple faith.
Wouldn’t the entire premise of this site just seem misguided and weird? Isn’t there a huge gap in philosophical skill between you and a person who believes in faith?
I know scientists, doctors, and lawyers who believe in faith. They are smart people with tons of human capital.
I guess the central point is that, human capital wise, there are diminishing returns on building philosophical soundness. The level at which you’d have to be at to even start reading lesswrong is already the level at which additional improvement probably won’t make a difference human-capital wise.
So while Lesswrong is certainly an extremely worthwhile thing to participate in, it’s not a college substitute. (that’s not to say that there aren’t auto-didactic practices that adequately replace college—just that lesswrong by itself is definitely not such a thing).
I think most smart people who do have a concept of faith can imagine that there are people who don’t and engage in arguments with them.
Don’t confuse the positions that someone takes with his general skill level in navigating arguments.
I didn’t intend to communicate that.
I meant to communicate that logical thinking and evaluating arguments is a level one skill, while understanding the nature of evidence and parsimony is a level two skill.
Having “faith” means that your skill level in philosophy doesn’t exceed level one, however well you may have mastered level one (well, maybe not strictly true since you can derive notions of parsimony from logic)
Okay, yeah. We just had different ideas on what 70% means.