I’m not certain, but I’m fairly confident I follow the structure of the argument and how it fits into the conversation.
I don’t mean to imply I achieved mastery myself from reading the passage, I’m saying that the writer seems to me (from this and other instances) to have a powerful understanding of the domain.
Yes, I understood what you meant. What I’m suggesting is that “seems” is precisely the operative word here.
Now, I obviously don’t know what “other instances” you have in mind, so I can’t comment on the validity of your overall impression. But judging just on the basis of this particular explanation, it seems to me that the degree to which it appears to convey a powerful understanding of the domain rather exceeds the degree to which it actually conveys a powerful understanding of the domain. (Note the word “conveys” there—I am not making a claim about the degree to which Eliezer actually understands the domain in question!)
In other words, if the argument that Eliezer gives was bad and wrong, how sure are you that you’d have noticed?
EDIT: For instance, how easily could you answer the question I asked in my top-level comment? Whatever answer you may give—is it the answer Eliezer would give, as well? If you think it is—how sure are you? Trying to answer these questions is one way to check whether you’ve really absorbed a coherent understanding of the matter, I think.
No.
Are you quite sure you understand it, then…?
I’m not certain, but I’m fairly confident I follow the structure of the argument and how it fits into the conversation.
I don’t mean to imply I achieved mastery myself from reading the passage, I’m saying that the writer seems to me (from this and other instances) to have a powerful understanding of the domain.
Yes, I understood what you meant. What I’m suggesting is that “seems” is precisely the operative word here.
Now, I obviously don’t know what “other instances” you have in mind, so I can’t comment on the validity of your overall impression. But judging just on the basis of this particular explanation, it seems to me that the degree to which it appears to convey a powerful understanding of the domain rather exceeds the degree to which it actually conveys a powerful understanding of the domain. (Note the word “conveys” there—I am not making a claim about the degree to which Eliezer actually understands the domain in question!)
In other words, if the argument that Eliezer gives was bad and wrong, how sure are you that you’d have noticed?
EDIT: For instance, how easily could you answer the question I asked in my top-level comment? Whatever answer you may give—is it the answer Eliezer would give, as well? If you think it is—how sure are you? Trying to answer these questions is one way to check whether you’ve really absorbed a coherent understanding of the matter, I think.