They aren’t rationalists per se, and don’t seem to overall have a high opinion of rats (though they’re also willing to paint a better picture of e.g. Scott Alexander than e.g. r/SneerClub paints, so it’s probably best to not confuse the two), and they’re willing to get personal and ad their hominems.
However, while I’d give them less credence than Wikipedia (which has issues of its own, as we’re all aware), that doesn’t mean that I ignore it entirely. Maybe it’s because I grew up in a cult, but RatWiki is really nice to visit every now and then, for much the same reason that I still visit r/exmormon every now and then. Also, it keeps a better list of cranks and scoundrels (and their cons and scandals) than Wikipedia, so I also use it every now and again as a(n initial) resource whenever my parents mention some person or thing which I’m pretty sure is bullshit just by the sound of it.
If you go to Wikipedia whether or not someone gets presented as a crank depends on whether there are secondary sources that make the case.
On the other hand whether or not RationalWiki presents a person as a crank is independent of any evidence and just because whether the person pattern matches to looking like a person that the RationalWiki community dislikes. There’s little knowledge gained.
They are not rationalists in the sense of followers of Yudkowsky. But there was always a lot of tension between “think for yourself” and “there’s this smart guy who has the answer to everything” .
They aren’t rationalists per se, and don’t seem to overall have a high opinion of rats (though they’re also willing to paint a better picture of e.g. Scott Alexander than e.g. r/SneerClub paints, so it’s probably best to not confuse the two), and they’re willing to get personal and ad their hominems.
However, while I’d give them less credence than Wikipedia (which has issues of its own, as we’re all aware), that doesn’t mean that I ignore it entirely. Maybe it’s because I grew up in a cult, but RatWiki is really nice to visit every now and then, for much the same reason that I still visit r/exmormon every now and then. Also, it keeps a better list of cranks and scoundrels (and their cons and scandals) than Wikipedia, so I also use it every now and again as a(n initial) resource whenever my parents mention some person or thing which I’m pretty sure is bullshit just by the sound of it.
If you go to Wikipedia whether or not someone gets presented as a crank depends on whether there are secondary sources that make the case.
On the other hand whether or not RationalWiki presents a person as a crank is independent of any evidence and just because whether the person pattern matches to looking like a person that the RationalWiki community dislikes. There’s little knowledge gained.
They are not rationalists in the sense of followers of Yudkowsky. But there was always a lot of tension between “think for yourself” and “there’s this smart guy who has the answer to everything” .
Thanks and I love that we can call ourselves rats!