I believe this essay, despite being written by a mystic and involving mystical theories and little formal scientific evidence, is likely true and of value to rationalists.
But every crank or New Ager believes that their pet theory, despite being mystical and lacking scientific evidence, is likely true and of value to rationalists. So from the Inside View, I think the essay is valuable, but from the Outside View I’m forced to admit it might not be.
I chose to post it after people reacted positively to the comments I made based on it, but I still feel uncomfortable transgressing the general principle, hence the guilt.
It is especially important for rationalists to be confronted with things of potential value that they have ignored or rejected without rational grounds.
Cast off your guilt, sir! Speak your mind and speak it loud.
Even things that are untrue may provide information about the mental experiences of the person who believes them.
Religion and mysticism are far too common to simply dismiss as nonsense; it behooves those of us who reject them fundamentally to understand better their hold on the minds of others.
I agree with you, but we still can’t go posting every bit of falsehood or New Age flimflam on Less Wrong just because there’s probably something interesting behind it. A general article on the mental phenomena that underlie astrology would be interesting, but an astrologer’s article on what it means for the moon to be in Aquarius, presented without comment, would not be.
Ok, I had to actually go read (well, skim) that abortion of a site before I realised why you seemed to suddenly turn into a troll ;)
But I have to say—your sentence makes too much sense to really reflect that site. For one thing—your sentence isn’t in newspaper-headline grammar. All cube truth denied!
My eyes! my EYES! oh, why, oh why did I click on that link!
(I am now laughing. It is a tortured, whimpering sort of laughter. )
edit2: “4-day...cube”. that, alone, should have thrown a compiler error, and I should have recognized that as quite sufficient evidence for the stupidity of the contents…
As an upside, I might be able to grok Nabokov for the next two weeks. best case scenario: the effect wears off the moment my nabokov paper is turned in.
Why should you feel bad about transgressing a general principle when you have reasons to, you know these reasons, and you consider yourself capable of evaluating the validity of these reasons? (As opposed to the structureless black-box belief “this essay is valuable”.) The outside view also says that you have, at best, high-average reasoning ability and have no business writing for Less Wrong.
I can see it making sense to disclaim a greater-than-average chance of biased evaluation in this case, but not guilt. Without people who can successfully use the inside view in some cases being willing to do so, no progress can be made.
Um… why is guilt proper here? Rationalists win, Bayesians condition on all evidence, and so on.
Ten bucks say that sometimes in the future some religious person will use this post (or a followup) as evidence that rationalists worship Satan.
If I were to take that bet, when exactly would I expect to get paid?
I believe this essay, despite being written by a mystic and involving mystical theories and little formal scientific evidence, is likely true and of value to rationalists.
But every crank or New Ager believes that their pet theory, despite being mystical and lacking scientific evidence, is likely true and of value to rationalists. So from the Inside View, I think the essay is valuable, but from the Outside View I’m forced to admit it might not be.
I chose to post it after people reacted positively to the comments I made based on it, but I still feel uncomfortable transgressing the general principle, hence the guilt.
It is especially important for rationalists to be confronted with things of potential value that they have ignored or rejected without rational grounds.
Cast off your guilt, sir! Speak your mind and speak it loud.
Even things that are untrue may provide information about the mental experiences of the person who believes them.
Religion and mysticism are far too common to simply dismiss as nonsense; it behooves those of us who reject them fundamentally to understand better their hold on the minds of others.
I agree with you, but we still can’t go posting every bit of falsehood or New Age flimflam on Less Wrong just because there’s probably something interesting behind it. A general article on the mental phenomena that underlie astrology would be interesting, but an astrologer’s article on what it means for the moon to be in Aquarius, presented without comment, would not be.
I don’t think that dismissing them as nonsense, and seeking to better understand their hold, are mutually exclusive. We should do both.
Nonsense is not the same thing as falsehoods.
For comparison, I am happy to dismiss as true nonsense, and give no further consideration to, the significance of nature’s 4-day simultaneous harmonic time cube.
You are stupid and evil, have been scammed by criminal educators you one-ist anti-intelligent fool.
Ok, I had to actually go read (well, skim) that abortion of a site before I realised why you seemed to suddenly turn into a troll ;)
But I have to say—your sentence makes too much sense to really reflect that site. For one thing—your sentence isn’t in newspaper-headline grammar. All cube truth denied!
Although I must say I’ve personally adopted the phrase “educated evil and stupid” as it applies so well to so many people.
My eyes! my EYES! oh, why, oh why did I click on that link!
(I am now laughing. It is a tortured, whimpering sort of laughter. )
edit2: “4-day...cube”. that, alone, should have thrown a compiler error, and I should have recognized that as quite sufficient evidence for the stupidity of the contents… As an upside, I might be able to grok Nabokov for the next two weeks. best case scenario: the effect wears off the moment my nabokov paper is turned in.
True?
I’m still confused. Which general principle?
Outside view less biased than inside view.
Why should you feel bad about transgressing a general principle when you have reasons to, you know these reasons, and you consider yourself capable of evaluating the validity of these reasons? (As opposed to the structureless black-box belief “this essay is valuable”.) The outside view also says that you have, at best, high-average reasoning ability and have no business writing for Less Wrong.
I can see it making sense to disclaim a greater-than-average chance of biased evaluation in this case, but not guilt. Without people who can successfully use the inside view in some cases being willing to do so, no progress can be made.
Why should you feel guilty ever? Lame feeling.
deleted
I’m still confused. Which general principle are you transgressing?