3 ms·

It is not necessary to resolve all contradictions in one's beliefs and values to gain some benefit from rational introspection. Even professional physicists ha

It is not necessary to resolve all contradictions in one's beliefs and values to gain some benefit from rational introspection. Even professional physicists haven't arrived at a consensus on how general relativity and quantum mechanics fit together; that doesn't make the internal consistency of those two models worthless.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Yes, and that is a completely useless remark that is the basis of Western philosophy since 4000 years. This isn't what "lesswrong rationalism" is about, that is about frantically trying to eliminate as many contradictions as possible even if it means being less effective at actually optimizing the values, whether it is by eliminating flexibility, increasing the likelihood of error, or abstracting away the contradictions to such a level that they can't be consciously dealt with anymore. As you've missed in my first post, the issue is that personal philosophies are fundamentally different from physics, in that in physics there is a correct model, that can be reached by eliminating contradictions and constantly iterating. As far as models to maximize personal success, however that is, there is no such thing as a correct model, there will always be contradictions, and hyperfocusing on the most rational possible model to optimize for an irrational goal will almost always yield worse results. Rationalism doesn't just mean "we can derive some benefit by carefully trying to use rationality to arrive to better models and decision", the same way that scientism doesn't just mean "we can derive some benefit by using science", rationalism is the idea that *all beliefs and decisions should be based purely on rationality". Unless your goal is purely quantifiable and free of contradictions, this is actively harmful. I never once suggested that rationality isn't useful or that resolving some contradictions is useless, I actively stated the reverse, that they are both useful insofar that they actually make the situation better for you, which is absolutely not what rationalism is about. Rationalism presupposes the supremacy of rationality, which itself cannot be rationally proved.
- chrchang523 6y ago
  Any toolbox can be misused. Anything can be made into an idol. The fact remains that the "lesswrong rationalism" community was the first to popularize several rather sophisticated reasoning concepts. They have provided common reference points that have made it easier for me to communicate my thinking to others and vice versa, and I am far from the only writer/reader who has benefited in this way. As a consequence, I'm generally sympathetic to this group, and personally identify as a rationalist. I agree that the heuristic "internal consistency is always worth actively working on" can go very wrong. It looks like you're defining rationalism as structuring of one's life around that heuristic; I'm guessing you must have had bad experiences with people who actually do that.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In that case, you're not advocating for rationalism. It's a word that has a well accepted definition of a philosophical framework where reason is the primary source of justification and (moral) truth. Just using reason to come to conclusions that aren't necessarily ultimately justified or deriving truth from pure reason is literally the entire concept of Western philosophy. And by Western, I mean from Iceland to Bagdad and beyond. I'm fairly certain it's also the entire concept of Eastern philosophy too but I don't know much about that. Lesswrong is certainly good for introducing concepts and allowing discussions. That does not a philosophy make. I'm not critiquing the website, nor the community, but the "pure reason" rationalist philosophy that a lot of people there adopted and peddled, without spending enough time justifying it, instead spending vast amounts of time applying. This is exactly what the article was addressing when it talks about rationalism, too. Rationalism is, by definition, idolatry of reason. At the very minimum, to even show any kind of rationalism, you have to believe that somethings are true by virtue of pure reason, independently of the empirical world. Rationalism really doesn't have any thing to do with using or not using reason.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Yes, and that is a completely useless remark that is the basis of Western philosophy since 4000 years. This isn't what "lesswrong rationalism" is about, that is about frantically trying to eliminate as many contradictions as possible even if it means being less effective at actually optimizing the values, whether it is by eliminating flexibility, increasing the likelihood of error, or abstracting away the contradictions to such a level that they can't be consciously dealt with anymore. As you've missed in my first post, the issue is that personal philosophies are fundamentally different from physics, in that in physics there is a correct model, that can be reached by eliminating contradictions and constantly iterating. As far as models to maximize personal success, however that is, there is no such thing as a correct model, there will always be contradictions, and hyperfocusing on the most rational possible model to optimize for an irrational goal will almost always yield worse results. Rationalism doesn't just mean "we can derive some benefit by carefully trying to use rationality to arrive to better models and decision", the same way that scientism doesn't just mean "we can derive some benefit by using science", rationalism is the idea that *all beliefs and decisions should be based purely on rationality". Unless your goal is purely quantifiable and free of contradictions, this is actively harmful. I never once suggested that rationality isn't useful or that resolving some contradictions is useless, I actively stated the reverse, that they are both useful insofar that they actually make the situation better for you, which is absolutely not what rationalism is about. Rationalism presupposes the supremacy of rationality, which itself cannot be rationally proved.

chrchang523 6y ago
Any toolbox can be misused. Anything can be made into an idol. The fact remains that the "lesswrong rationalism" community was the first to popularize several rather sophisticated reasoning concepts. They have provided common reference points that have made it easier for me to communicate my thinking to others and vice versa, and I am far from the only writer/reader who has benefited in this way. As a consequence, I'm generally sympathetic to this group, and personally identify as a rationalist. I agree that the heuristic "internal consistency is always worth actively working on" can go very wrong. It looks like you're defining rationalism as structuring of one's life around that heuristic; I'm guessing you must have had bad experiences with people who actually do that.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In that case, you're not advocating for rationalism. It's a word that has a well accepted definition of a philosophical framework where reason is the primary source of justification and (moral) truth. Just using reason to come to conclusions that aren't necessarily ultimately justified or deriving truth from pure reason is literally the entire concept of Western philosophy. And by Western, I mean from Iceland to Bagdad and beyond. I'm fairly certain it's also the entire concept of Eastern philosophy too but I don't know much about that. Lesswrong is certainly good for introducing concepts and allowing discussions. That does not a philosophy make. I'm not critiquing the website, nor the community, but the "pure reason" rationalist philosophy that a lot of people there adopted and peddled, without spending enough time justifying it, instead spending vast amounts of time applying. This is exactly what the article was addressing when it talks about rationalism, too. Rationalism is, by definition, idolatry of reason. At the very minimum, to even show any kind of rationalism, you have to believe that somethings are true by virtue of pure reason, independently of the empirical world. Rationalism really doesn't have any thing to do with using or not using reason.