You think you have a good map, what you really have is a working hypothesis
I most certainly don’t think that. I’m not so sure many people on LW think that. The part of your map that talks about others’ maps looks suspect.
Intellectual speculation isn’t bad in itself. Actually, it’s fun! It’s only bad when people don’t know that they’re in fact merely speculating. I have nothing against people of LessWrong banding together to do experimental science but that wouldn’t mean LessWrong as a whole was progressing on the path towards greater virtue. It would only mean that some users decided to do something more than talking about stuff on a forum and other users, while certainly cheering for them, decided that this whole citizen science business is too much trouble for too little reward.
I most certainly don’t think that. I’m not so sure many people on LW think that. The part of your map that talks about others’ maps looks suspect.
Perhaps, but in practice I see appeals to the sequences or a well liked article taken as very strong evidence for a position and almost never is the central point challenged.
I certainly wasn’t expecting everyone on LW to head in a more empirical direction in practice, that would be silly, since even filling out a form takes some time. I was hoping LW could become a place where projects like this do happen and are encouraged. Much like currently careful high quality scholarship does happen and is encouraged. That’s the reason I cited the positive effect of lukeprog’s article as an example of the kind of a sufficient magnitude of change.
Perhaps, but in practice I see appeals to the sequences or a well liked article taken as very strong evidence for a position and almost never is the central point challenged.
Do you count cases where someone puts a link to an article in their argument as instances of that phenomenon? In such cases it might be hard to tell whether someone is being dogmatic or just providing a link to an already written elaboration of the ideas involved.
I most certainly don’t think that. I’m not so sure many people on LW think that. The part of your map that talks about others’ maps looks suspect.
Intellectual speculation isn’t bad in itself. Actually, it’s fun! It’s only bad when people don’t know that they’re in fact merely speculating. I have nothing against people of LessWrong banding together to do experimental science but that wouldn’t mean LessWrong as a whole was progressing on the path towards greater virtue. It would only mean that some users decided to do something more than talking about stuff on a forum and other users, while certainly cheering for them, decided that this whole citizen science business is too much trouble for too little reward.
Perhaps, but in practice I see appeals to the sequences or a well liked article taken as very strong evidence for a position and almost never is the central point challenged.
I certainly wasn’t expecting everyone on LW to head in a more empirical direction in practice, that would be silly, since even filling out a form takes some time. I was hoping LW could become a place where projects like this do happen and are encouraged. Much like currently careful high quality scholarship does happen and is encouraged. That’s the reason I cited the positive effect of lukeprog’s article as an example of the kind of a sufficient magnitude of change.
Do you count cases where someone puts a link to an article in their argument as instances of that phenomenon? In such cases it might be hard to tell whether someone is being dogmatic or just providing a link to an already written elaboration of the ideas involved.