Are you sure you want to refer to RationalWiki? Even leaving aside their hostility to LessWrong, the typical article there does not exhibit any especial rationality, merely the typical standard of blog rants to be found anywhere on the web. As I observed once before, rationality is their flag, not their method.
This is why I phrased it as “sections of RationalWiki.” I do find some stuff there helpful, but mostly not. I will think some more about this point—ironic that the comment below makes exactly the opposite point. I’m open to persuasion, what do you and others think?
RationalWiki serves as a bridge for the inferential distance problem so often discussed here. Topics such as fallacies and biases are discussed at RationalWiki in a language that the general public can understand. As a gateway drug toward more advanced rationality, it has an educational value that we shouldn’t dismiss.
RationalWiki follows the standard New Atheist pattern of being too certain in their conclusions. Beliefs that aren’t orthodox get rejected because they violate the orthodox New Atheist wordview. Cromwell’s rule doesn’t permeate the website.
RationalWiki is not about valuing empiricism and holding views backed up by empiric evidence. Wiki-entries get accepted when they speak for the orthodox side and not because they cite scientific studies to back up their claims.
Culturally people exposed to RationalWiki might come off with considering rationality as being about straw vulcan rationality.
That is like recommending a bad textbook as a gateway to learning from a good one. RationalWiki says the wrong things with the wrong attitude. I believe that introducing people to it is counterproductive. Some of it reads as if it was written by a 14-year-old with a naive overestimation of his smartness.
Are you sure you want to refer to RationalWiki? Even leaving aside their hostility to LessWrong, the typical article there does not exhibit any especial rationality, merely the typical standard of blog rants to be found anywhere on the web. As I observed once before, rationality is their flag, not their method.
This is why I phrased it as “sections of RationalWiki.” I do find some stuff there helpful, but mostly not. I will think some more about this point—ironic that the comment below makes exactly the opposite point. I’m open to persuasion, what do you and others think?
RationalWiki serves as a bridge for the inferential distance problem so often discussed here. Topics such as fallacies and biases are discussed at RationalWiki in a language that the general public can understand. As a gateway drug toward more advanced rationality, it has an educational value that we shouldn’t dismiss.
It’s more like a vaccine for rationality than a gateway drug.
Ok, I’m convinced. I’m editing the article to take out RationalWiki. Thanks for helping me update!
To add a few arguments:
RationalWiki follows the standard New Atheist pattern of being too certain in their conclusions. Beliefs that aren’t orthodox get rejected because they violate the orthodox New Atheist wordview. Cromwell’s rule doesn’t permeate the website.
RationalWiki is not about valuing empiricism and holding views backed up by empiric evidence. Wiki-entries get accepted when they speak for the orthodox side and not because they cite scientific studies to back up their claims.
Culturally people exposed to RationalWiki might come off with considering rationality as being about straw vulcan rationality.
Thanks for helping fill me in more about RationalWiki. I will keep this in mind and avoid directing people to it in the future. Much appreciated!
That is like recommending a bad textbook as a gateway to learning from a good one. RationalWiki says the wrong things with the wrong attitude. I believe that introducing people to it is counterproductive. Some of it reads as if it was written by a 14-year-old with a naive overestimation of his smartness.
Ok, I’m convinced. I’m editing the article to take out RationalWiki. Thanks for helping me update!
OK, we have different definitions of good educational writing. I’m tapping out.
This effect seems overshadowed by worries that knowing about biases can hurt people to me.
Ok, I’m convinced. I’m editing the article to take out RationalWiki. Thanks for helping me update!