it’s extremely obvious (especially if you look at a few of his other recent articles and comments) that that’s simply dishonest: he started with the examples and fitted the general point about rationality around them.
Considering he has changed the example, I find this unlikely. In any event, he post would appear to stand on it’s own.
Considering he has changed the example, I find this unlikely. In any event, he post would appear to stand on it’s own.
The fact that he changed the example doesn’t seem to me very strong example that the example wasn’t originally the motivation for writing the article.
I made no comment on whether the post stands well on its own; only on wedrifid’s accusation of dishonesty.
Well, he could just be very good at it, I suppose. I had a much lower prior anyway, so I may be misjudging the strength of the evidence here.