So, I’m sorry if I’m missing something here, but… your claim is that you have evidence, but you don’t wish to discuss ANY specifics? Not even one single example?
I mean, yes, I can IMAGINE a hypothetical set of historical data that does that, but I can also imagine the caloric requirements of an elder red dragon.
So, I’m sorry if I’m missing something here, but… your claim is that you have evidence, but you don’t wish to discuss ANY specifics? Not even one single example?
I got the impression aronwall is willing to discuss specifics, just not here & now (where they’re instead trying to sum up their POV rather than start an object-level argument). Hence the separate blog.
“surely you can at least imagine a hypothetical set of historical data for which I’d be right”
aronwall
It feels dishonest to say “The evidence supports me, and I’m sure a reasonable person can see how that would be the case” until and unless you actually are willing to share that evidence.
I know I’d be just as irked if Eliezer made a post saying “Science has proven Cryonics right! I’ll let you know the details in a few months”, so I don’t think it’s just bias against the conclusion.
As a POLICY, I don’t want posts like the one I replied to here in LessWrong. I want people I can actually engage and talk to, or who are at least clear and up-front that they will engage me later.
If he’d just said “I’m still collecting my thoughts, but I’ll get back to you when I’m done” I’d be totally satisfied, but he instead argued for his position AND didn’t provide evidence, and that combination just seems like a poisonous mix that could easily lay waste to a nice walled garden like this.
To be clear: my issue is NOT with aronwall, just this one particular comment.
So, I’m sorry if I’m missing something here, but… your claim is that you have evidence, but you don’t wish to discuss ANY specifics? Not even one single example?
I mean, yes, I can IMAGINE a hypothetical set of historical data that does that, but I can also imagine the caloric requirements of an elder red dragon.
I got the impression aronwall is willing to discuss specifics, just not here & now (where they’re instead trying to sum up their POV rather than start an object-level argument). Hence the separate blog.
It feels dishonest to say “The evidence supports me, and I’m sure a reasonable person can see how that would be the case” until and unless you actually are willing to share that evidence.
I know I’d be just as irked if Eliezer made a post saying “Science has proven Cryonics right! I’ll let you know the details in a few months”, so I don’t think it’s just bias against the conclusion.
As a POLICY, I don’t want posts like the one I replied to here in LessWrong. I want people I can actually engage and talk to, or who are at least clear and up-front that they will engage me later.
If he’d just said “I’m still collecting my thoughts, but I’ll get back to you when I’m done” I’d be totally satisfied, but he instead argued for his position AND didn’t provide evidence, and that combination just seems like a poisonous mix that could easily lay waste to a nice walled garden like this.
To be clear: my issue is NOT with aronwall, just this one particular comment.