EDIT: there goes another conversation. Thank you karma toll.
You made a claim that I—and, you yourself acknowledged, most LWers—had a low prior for.
i know. But you are not supposed to downvote for disagreement.
I’m not downvoting for disagreement, I’m downvoting for absurd claims without any damn evidence. If you had provided, say, an example of a LW user who is better at philosophy—as opposed to a terminology quibble—then I would not have downvoted even if I didn’t think it was sufficient.
Well, I was impressed by LW, so there’s naturally going to be some correlation.
Level meaning how good he seems at evaluating philosophical arguments, identifying flaws, and mostly avoiding the flaws that seem especially common in philosophy.
And i would say he isnot good at coming to clear conclusions,
I think you misspelled “correct” there.
examing all the relevant arguments,
I always considered phiosophers far to willing to spend ages dealing with some BS position that could be demolished in seconds if they were trying to win and not just “do philosophy” for as long as possible, but whatever.
aviding known errors,
If you have spotted an error, I advise you to point it out. Not just make vuage statements about how there are totally loads of errors.
avoiding hubris,
Truly, the gods shall punish him for his arrogance.
using standard terminology, etc.
I suppose standard terminology might help people critique his work, at that. Still, it seems a minor flaw TBH.
One piece of evidence, which, as I noted, is at best extremely weak and misleadingly labelled.
I fail to see what was misleading.
You called it EY “thanking real philosophers for fixing his arguments” which, in the context of you saying that there were better philosophers on LW, rather implies that their skill at philosophy allowed them to identify a mistake well known to, well, experts in the field; not them interpreting his unclear terms charitably, which while a good thing is hardly relevant.
So? Philosophy is mostly arguing, and arguing more clearly is arguing better...is better philosophy. Are you saying the link was irrelevant or what?
I think you accidentally quoted your self instead of me there.
“Rhetorical” is a rather rtheorical way of saying “clear”. EY can claim to have a Wonderful Solution in his head that no-one can undestand, but thre is no reason anyone else shouild buy that. To solve a probllem is to publish a solution that persuades others, for all practical purposes.
Um, no. To solve a problem is to find the correct solution, which may or may not require persuading others that it is correct, or indeed that it is incorrect or that they shouldn’t eat tuna.
But clarity has nothing to do with “persuasion” in the advertiser’s or politician’s sense. Clarity is not a varnish that makes bad arguments look good: clarification is a major part of the substance of philosophical solution.
Considering how unclear to a layman much philosophy is, I assume you mean that “clarity” is helping experts to find any mistakes you may have made. This is important, and indeed a separate discipline from what we might call the Dark Arts. Eliezer could probablydo with some more of this, yeah. OTOH, philosophers generally seem pretty bad at this, so I’m not sure if Eliezer is unusually bad. And it’s certainly not the only or even main thing philosophers are supposed to be good at.
But not, I suspect, simply because you’re contradicting the consensus. You have made sweeping claims, not considered likely by most LWers, regarding, among other things, users on this site (which we can all see,) yet you failed to provide examples; your lack of examples is at best unhelpful and at worst … well dishonest or symptomatic of massive bias, whichever of those is “worst”.
I argue my points.
Did you quote the wrong thing here too? I’m not sure how this link is relevant.
You did not provide any evidence for this claim.
ETA:
What would evidence that someone is bad at something look like?
Evidence that someone is unusually bad would look like lots of people being better. So would evidence that “A number of better-than-EY philosophers have visited this site, sometimes displaying their skills in discussions with EY.”
EDIT: there goes another conversation. Thank you karma toll.
I’m not downvoting for disagreement, I’m downvoting for absurd claims without any damn evidence. If you had provided, say, an example of a LW user who is better at philosophy—as opposed to a terminology quibble—then I would not have downvoted even if I didn’t think it was sufficient.
I think you misspelled “correct” there.
I always considered phiosophers far to willing to spend ages dealing with some BS position that could be demolished in seconds if they were trying to win and not just “do philosophy” for as long as possible, but whatever.
If you have spotted an error, I advise you to point it out. Not just make vuage statements about how there are totally loads of errors.
Truly, the gods shall punish him for his arrogance.
I suppose standard terminology might help people critique his work, at that. Still, it seems a minor flaw TBH.
You called it EY “thanking real philosophers for fixing his arguments” which, in the context of you saying that there were better philosophers on LW, rather implies that their skill at philosophy allowed them to identify a mistake well known to, well, experts in the field; not them interpreting his unclear terms charitably, which while a good thing is hardly relevant.
I think you accidentally quoted your self instead of me there.
Um, no. To solve a problem is to find the correct solution, which may or may not require persuading others that it is correct, or indeed that it is incorrect or that they shouldn’t eat tuna.
Considering how unclear to a layman much philosophy is, I assume you mean that “clarity” is helping experts to find any mistakes you may have made. This is important, and indeed a separate discipline from what we might call the Dark Arts. Eliezer could probablydo with some more of this, yeah. OTOH, philosophers generally seem pretty bad at this, so I’m not sure if Eliezer is unusually bad. And it’s certainly not the only or even main thing philosophers are supposed to be good at.
Did you quote the wrong thing here too? I’m not sure how this link is relevant.
Evidence that someone is unusually bad would look like lots of people being better. So would evidence that “A number of better-than-EY philosophers have visited this site, sometimes displaying their skills in discussions with EY.”