Did I say that rationalism is about Bayes’ theorem? No. Bayes’ theorem is a minor descriptive detail of Yudkowky’s focus on being more rational.
Did I say that rationalism is religious because it is about Bayes’ theorem? Also no. In fact you can remove the mention of Bayes’ theorem and it changes basically nothing.
Is it true that rationalism inherits its obsession with ‘being more rational’ from Yud’s writings, which are also accurately described as emphasizing Bayes’ theorem? Yes.
Is talking about p(doom), p(anything), or “updating” in a certain direction a cultish and religion-like use of the language of Bayesian probability? Yes.
Do religions often fetishize or have in their holy writings things which they do not actually practice or have constructed out of practice? Also yes.
No. Bayes’ theorem is a minor descriptive detail of Yudkowky’s focus on being more rational.
Your post uses “notably and especially” as adjectives to describe Bayes’ theorem and now you say “minor”.
Most of what you wrote is quite vague and thus hard to falsify. Your claim about Bayes’ theorem isn’t and you seem to agree that I have falsfied it when you now say ‘minor’.
Is talking about p(doom), p(anything), or “updating” in a certain direction a cultish and religion-like use of the language of Bayesian probability?
Each knowledge community whether scientific or elsewhere has their own terminology. Having it’s own terminology is not unique to religions.
It got the impression that you asserted that Yudkowsky’s work somehow has a central in a religious way to rationality.
To me the fact that CFAR started out with the idea that Bayesian might be important and then found in their research that teaching Bayes formula isn’t, is a prime example that rationality works differently than religion.
Things aren’t just taken as given and religiously believed.
Did I say that rationalism is about Bayes’ theorem? No. Bayes’ theorem is a minor descriptive detail of Yudkowky’s focus on being more rational.
Did I say that rationalism is religious because it is about Bayes’ theorem? Also no. In fact you can remove the mention of Bayes’ theorem and it changes basically nothing.
Is it true that rationalism inherits its obsession with ‘being more rational’ from Yud’s writings, which are also accurately described as emphasizing Bayes’ theorem? Yes.
Is talking about p(doom), p(anything), or “updating” in a certain direction a cultish and religion-like use of the language of Bayesian probability? Yes.
Do religions often fetishize or have in their holy writings things which they do not actually practice or have constructed out of practice? Also yes.
Your post uses “notably and especially” as adjectives to describe Bayes’ theorem and now you say “minor”.
Most of what you wrote is quite vague and thus hard to falsify. Your claim about Bayes’ theorem isn’t and you seem to agree that I have falsfied it when you now say ‘minor’.
Each knowledge community whether scientific or elsewhere has their own terminology. Having it’s own terminology is not unique to religions.
It’s “notably and especially” part OF YUDKOWSKY’S WORK AND WHAT HE PROMOTES. It is a minor part of the characterization of rationalism.
This is legitimately such poor reading comprehension that I assume malice.
It got the impression that you asserted that Yudkowsky’s work somehow has a central in a religious way to rationality.
To me the fact that CFAR started out with the idea that Bayesian might be important and then found in their research that teaching Bayes formula isn’t, is a prime example that rationality works differently than religion.
Things aren’t just taken as given and religiously believed.