TagLast edit: 26 Jan 2021 14:04 UTC by Yoav Ravid

A Consensus is a general or full agreement between members of a group. A consensus can be useful in deciding what’s true (e.g, a scientific consensus), or as a criteria in decision making. A False Consensus can happen when someone thinks a position is in consensus when it isn’t. one can also claim a consensus falsely to advance their position and make it difficult for others to oppose it. a False Controversy can happen when one mistakes something to not be in consensus when in fact it is. Claiming false controversies is a common way of creating uncertainty and doubt.

There are many things that are considered a consensus on LessWrong, even though they’re are not considered a consensus in the scientific community, such as: One-Boxing, cooperating on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, Bayesianism over frequentist probability (and more to be added)

Notable things that aren’t in consensus on LessWrong include Blackmail /​ Extortion, the benefits of rationality, AI Timelines and AI Takeoff, as well as AI alignment strategies,

Related Pages: Common Knowledge, Disagreement, Modesty, Modesty argument, Aumann agreement, Government (in the context of democracies), Contrarianism

See also: consensus on wikipedia

Learn­ing To Love Scien­tific Consensus

Scott Alexander2 Sep 2017 8:44 UTC
19 points
1 comment19 min readLW link

Trust­ing Ex­pert Consensus

ChrisHallquist16 Oct 2013 20:22 UTC
39 points
81 comments17 min readLW link

[Question] Is there an aca­demic con­sen­sus around Rent Con­trol?

edoarad22 Jan 2021 16:18 UTC
3 points
14 comments1 min readLW link

In­di­vi­d­ual Ra­tion­al­ity Needn’t Gen­er­al­ize to Ra­tional Consensus

Akshat Mahajan4 May 2020 22:53 UTC
42 points
16 comments4 min readLW link

Every­body Knows

Zvi2 Jul 2019 12:20 UTC
97 points
20 comments4 min readLW link2 nominations1 review

Sun­set at Noon

Raemon29 Nov 2017 14:52 UTC
136 points
23 comments17 min readLW link

How Com­mon Are Science Failures?

Scott Alexander3 Jul 2014 1:36 UTC
13 points
2 comments5 min readLW link

How defer­en­tial should we be to the fore­casts of sub­ject mat­ter ex­perts?

VipulNaik14 Jul 2014 23:41 UTC
22 points
5 comments10 min readLW link
No comments.