No, the best way to convince me is to show me data. Evidence I can actually update on, instead of self-reporting on results that may be poisoned by motivated reasoning, or any number of other biases. Data I can show to people who know what they are talking about, that they will take seriously.
I see Bayesian Rationality as a methodology as much as it is a calculation.
It’s being aware of our own prior beliefs, the confidence intervals of those beliefs, keeping those priors as close to the base rates as possible, being cognizant of how our biases can influence our perception of all this, trying to mitigate the effects of those biases, and updating based on the strength of evidence.
I’m trying to get better at math so I can do better calculations. It’s a major flaw in my technique I acknowledge and am trying to change.
But as you noted earlier, none of this answers my question.
If I am not currently practicing your art, and you believe your art is good, what evidence do you have to support that claim?
A strong correlation between adopting the virtues and established methods of rationality, and an increased quality of life, but yeah; more handwavey.
I don’t even know what calculations could be made. That’s sorta why I’m here.
Yes, but they could all be explained by the fact I just sat down and bothered to think about the problem, which wouldn’t exactly be an amazing endorsement of rationality as a whole.
I also don’t look at rationality as merely a set of tools; it’s an entire worldview that emphasizes curiosity and a desire to know the truth. If it does improve lives, it might very well simply be making our thinking more robust and streamlined. If so, I wouldn’t know how to falsify or quantify that.
I ask the question this way to hopefully avoid stepping on toes. I’m fully open to the idea that the answer is “we have none”.
Also, I am primarily addressing the people who are making a claim. I am not necessarily making a claim myself.
I’m convinced mostly due to its effects on my own life, as stated in the opening paragraph. But I’m unsure of how to test and demonstrate that claim. My question is for my benefit as well as others.
I just realized that I work tomorrow, so we are not doing the hike. Instead, we are doing our usual 6pm meetup at the Johnson County Central Resource Library. We will do our hike next week (June 25th, 9am, Shawnee Lake Dog Park).
If I find that it does have actual impact on the podcast’s effectiveness, then I absolutely will seriously consider changing it. Your criticism has updated me marginally in that direction, but it’s not quite enough for me to act on it, particularly since you’re the only person to mention it.
Thank you for your feedback!
I’m sure that there are Street Epistemologists that are guilty of this, but that’s literally opposite of what I encourage or practice.
At its core, SE is merely coaching people in asking the Fundamental Question of Rationality.
As an SE-er, it’s my way of Raising the Sanity Waterline.
It’s excellent at circumventing the Backfire Effect.
There are as many motivations for SE as there are practitioners.