not to detract, but does Richard Dawkins really posses such ‘high quality’? IMO his arguments are good as a gateway for aspiring rationalists, not that far above the sanity water line
that, or it might be a problem of forums in general ..
Dawkins is a very high-quality thinker, as his scientific writings reveal. The fact that he has also published “elementary” rationalist material in no way takes away from this.
He’s way, way far above the level represented by the participants in his namesake forum.
(I’d give even odds that EY could persuade him to sign up for cryonics in an hour or less.)
I was thinking: “Bloggingheads implies the participants believe they are within a few degrees of status of each other”. It’d definitely be one worth a viewing or two!
Here’s Dawkins on some non socially-reinforced views: AI, psychometrics, and quantum mechanics (in the last 2 minutes, saying MWI is slightly less weird than Copenhagen, but that the proliferation of branches is uneconomical).
you’re absolutely right, I didn’t consider his scientific writings, though my argument still weakly stands since I wasn’t talking about that, he’s a good scientist, but a rationalist of say Eliezer’s level? I somehow doubt that.
(my bias is that he hasn’t gone beyond the ‘debunking the gods’ phase in his not specifically scientific writings, and here I’ll admit I haven’t read much of him.)
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”
I used cryonics as example because komponisto used it before me. I intended my question to be more general. “If you’re trying to market LW, or ideas commonly discussed here, then which celebrities and opinion-leaders should you focus on?”
Convincing Dawkins would be a great strategy for promoting cryonics… who else should the community focus on convincing?
Friends and family. They are the ones I care about most. (And, most likely, those that others in the community care about most too. At least the friends part. Family is less certain but more significant.)
Sure, convince those you love. I was asking who you should try to convince if your goal is convincing someone who will themselves convince a lot of other people.
not to detract, but does Richard Dawkins really posses such ‘high quality’? IMO his arguments are good as a gateway for aspiring rationalists, not that far above the sanity water line
that, or it might be a problem of forums in general ..
Dawkins is a very high-quality thinker, as his scientific writings reveal. The fact that he has also published “elementary” rationalist material in no way takes away from this.
He’s way, way far above the level represented by the participants in his namesake forum.
(I’d give even odds that EY could persuade him to sign up for cryonics in an hour or less.)
Bloggingheads are exactly 60 minutes.
To be fair, I’d expect it to be a lot harder with an audience.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I was thinking: “Bloggingheads implies the participants believe they are within a few degrees of status of each other”. It’d definitely be one worth a viewing or two!
Here’s Dawkins on some non socially-reinforced views: AI, psychometrics, and quantum mechanics (in the last 2 minutes, saying MWI is slightly less weird than Copenhagen, but that the proliferation of branches is uneconomical).
Obviously the most you could persuade him of would be that he should look into it.
you’re absolutely right, I didn’t consider his scientific writings, though my argument still weakly stands since I wasn’t talking about that, he’s a good scientist, but a rationalist of say Eliezer’s level? I somehow doubt that.
(my bias is that he hasn’t gone beyond the ‘debunking the gods’ phase in his not specifically scientific writings, and here I’ll admit I haven’t read much of him.)
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.
Convincing Dawkins would be a great strategy for promoting cryonics… who else should the community focus on convincing?
Excusemewhat, the community, as in LW? We’re a cryonics advocacy group now?
I used cryonics as example because komponisto used it before me. I intended my question to be more general. “If you’re trying to market LW, or ideas commonly discussed here, then which celebrities and opinion-leaders should you focus on?”
Friends and family. They are the ones I care about most. (And, most likely, those that others in the community care about most too. At least the friends part. Family is less certain but more significant.)
Sure, convince those you love. I was asking who you should try to convince if your goal is convincing someone who will themselves convince a lot of other people.