Eliezer’s response does not. It looks like the response of one who feels their baby, LW style philosophy, is under attack. But it isn’t.
Methinks Eliezer needs to spend more time practicing the virtues of scholarship by actually reading much of the philosophy that he is critiquing. His assessments of “naturalistic” philosophy seem like straw men. Furthermore, from a psychological perspective, it seems like Eliezer is trying to defend his previously made commitments to “LW-Style philosophy” at all costs. This is not the mark of true rationality—true rationality admits challenges to previous assumptions.
Eliezer’s response does not. It looks like the response of one who feels their baby, LW style philosophy, is under attack. But it isn’t.
Methinks Eliezer needs to spend more time practicing the virtues of scholarship by actually reading much of the philosophy that he is critiquing. His assessments of “naturalistic” philosophy seem like straw men. Furthermore, from a psychological perspective, it seems like Eliezer is trying to defend his previously made commitments to “LW-Style philosophy” at all costs. This is not the mark of true rationality—true rationality admits challenges to previous assumptions.