Firstly, on a historical basis, many of the greatest scientists were clearly aiming for explanation not prediction.
Could you expand a bit more on how you view explanation as distinct from prediction?
(As I think about the concepts, I’m finding it tricky to draw a crisp distinction between the two.)
Here’s an archived version of the doc.
See Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
I agree with your basic point here, though have some nits to pick about your characterization of zen :-)
Seems somewhat related: Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds
Especially interesting because the authors are rich enough & credible enough to stand up a big project here, if they decide to.
Also Vipul’s donation report is interesting + helpful.
Note there’s also some good discussion about this post over on the EA Forum.
Curious how LessWrong sees its Q&A function slotting in amongst Quora, Stack Exchange, Twitter, etc.
(There are a lot of question-answering platforms currently extant; I’m not clear on the business case for another one.)
This is awesome.
Reminds me of Ben Kuhn’s recent question on the EA Forum – Has your EA worldview changed over time?
Makes sense, thanks for laying out some of your reasoning!
I think there’s a lot of inferential distance between Zen practices & the median LessWrong post. Bridging that distance would be a big project. Maybe one day I’ll take a stab at it – in the meantime it makes sense for stuff like this to live in the personal blog section.
Related, on the EA Forum. (I am the post’s author.)
… even if my property rights are technically secure, I don’t know how I would secure my mind.
Training up one’s concentration & present-moment awareness are probably helpful for this.
Haven’t read it yet, but here’s an academic review of “Federal Patent Takings,” which seems relevant.