3 ms·
1. Plenty of academics write books. 2. Comparing a paper and a book for length is obviously unfair. Bostrom has also written papers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
by rntz 10y ago
1. Plenty of academics write books.
2. Comparing a paper and a book for length is obviously unfair. Bostrom has also written papers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom#Journal_articles_.28selected.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom#Journal_articles_...
3. "Concrete theory" is vague. Is it a stand-in for "I won't accept any argument by a philosopher, only physicists need apply"?
- maxerickson 10y agoI'm not intentionally trying to snub philosophy. With concrete theory, the point I was reaching for is that when you look to measure impact you probably want to point back to a compact articulation of an idea. The book comparison was probably a cheap shot (on the other side of it, Einstein didn't need popular interest/approval for his ideas to matter; I think that is a positive). I think as much as anything the comparison is worthless because we can look backwards at Einstein.
- rntz 10y agoSure, that's fair. I think Bostrom is no Einstein. But I maintain that he's no crank, either. There's a lot of space in the world for people who are neither.