Read his scientific books, and listen to his lectures and conversations. Pay attention to the style of argumentation he uses, as contrasted with other writers on similar topics (e.g. Gould). What you will find is that beautiful combination of clarity, honesty, and—importantly—abstraction that is the hallmark of an advanced rationalist.
The “good scientist, but not good rationalist” type utterly fails to match him. Dawkins is not someone who compartmentalizes, or makes excuses for avoiding arguments. He also seems to have a very good intuitive understanding of probability theory—even to the point of “getting” the issue of many-worlds.
I would indeed put him near Eliezer in terms of rationality skill-level.
Most of Dawkins’ output predates the extreme rationality movement. Few scientists actually study rational thought—it seems as though the machine intelligence geeks and some of their psycholgist friends have gone some way beyond what is needed for everyday science.
Again, it’s not just the fact that he does science; it’s the way he does science.
Having skill as a rationalist is distinct from specializing in rationality as one’s area of research. Dawkins’ writings aren’t on rational thought (for the most part); they’re examples of rational thought.
I was actually considering writing a post about the term “Middle World”—an excellent tool for capturing a large space of consistent weaknesses in human intuitions.
I was expecting him to write like the posts here..ie. about rationality etc, but you make a good point.
consequentially I was browsing the archives a while ago and found this, now it is three ears old, but form the comments of Barkley_Rosser-mainly- it appears Gould didn’t exactly “[undo] the last thirty years of progress in his depiction of the field he was criticizing”
Read his scientific books, and listen to his lectures and conversations. Pay attention to the style of argumentation he uses, as contrasted with other writers on similar topics (e.g. Gould). What you will find is that beautiful combination of clarity, honesty, and—importantly—abstraction that is the hallmark of an advanced rationalist.
The “good scientist, but not good rationalist” type utterly fails to match him. Dawkins is not someone who compartmentalizes, or makes excuses for avoiding arguments. He also seems to have a very good intuitive understanding of probability theory—even to the point of “getting” the issue of many-worlds.
I would indeed put him near Eliezer in terms of rationality skill-level.
Most of Dawkins’ output predates the extreme rationality movement. Few scientists actually study rational thought—it seems as though the machine intelligence geeks and some of their psycholgist friends have gone some way beyond what is needed for everyday science.
Again, it’s not just the fact that he does science; it’s the way he does science.
Having skill as a rationalist is distinct from specializing in rationality as one’s area of research. Dawkins’ writings aren’t on rational thought (for the most part); they’re examples of rational thought.
I was actually considering writing a post about the term “Middle World”—an excellent tool for capturing a large space of consistent weaknesses in human intuitions.
I was expecting him to write like the posts here..ie. about rationality etc, but you make a good point. consequentially I was browsing the archives a while ago and found this, now it is three ears old, but form the comments of Barkley_Rosser-mainly- it appears Gould didn’t exactly “[undo] the last thirty years of progress in his depiction of the field he was criticizing”
not that I want to revive that old thread.