5 ms·

I think this is a valid point. But to some degree both can be true. I often felt when reading some of these type of texts: Wait a second, there is a wealth of t

I think this is a valid point. But to some degree both can be true. I often felt when reading some of these type of texts: Wait a second, there is a wealth of thinking on these topics out there; You are not at all situating all your elaborate thinking in a broader context. And there absolutely is willingness to be challenged, and (maybe less so) a willingness to be wrong. But there also is an arrogance that "we are the ones thinking about this rationally, and we will figure this out". As if people hadn't been thinking and discussing and (verbally and literally) fighting over all sorts of adjacent and similar topics in philosophy and sociology and anthropology and ... clubs and seminars forever. And importantly maybe there also isn't as much taste for understanding the limits of vigorous discussion and rational deduction. Adorno and Horkheimer posit a dialectic of rationality and enlightenment, Habermas tries to rebuild rational discourse by analyzing its preconditions. Yet for all the vigorous intellectualism of the rationalists, none of that ever seems to feature even in passing (maybe I have simply missed it...). And I have definitely encountered "if you just listen to me properly you will understand that I am right, because I have derived my conclusions rationally" in in person interactions. On the balance I'd rather have some arrogance and willingness to be debated and be wrong, over a timid need to defer to centuries of established thought though. The people I've met in person I've always been happy to hang out with and talk to.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
That's a fair point. Speaking only for myself, I think I fail to understand why it's important to situate philosophical discussions in the context of all the previous philosophers who have expressed related ideas, rather than simply discussing the ideas in isolation. I remember as a child coming to the same "if reality is a deception, at least I must exist to be deceived" conclusion that Descartes did, well before I had heard of Descartes. (I don't think this makes me special, it's just a natural conclusion anyone will reach if they ponder the subject). I think it's harmless for me to discuss that idea in public without someone saying "you need to read Descartes before you can talk about this". I also find my personal ethics are stronly aligned with what Kant espoused. But most people I talk to are not academic philosophers and have not read Kant, so when I want to explain my morals, I am better off explaining the ideas themselves than talking about Kant, which would be a distraction anyway because I didn't learn them from Kant, we just arrived at the same conclusions. If I'm talking with a philosopher I can just say "I'm a Kantian" as shorthand, but that's really just jargon for people who already know what I'm talking about. I also think that while it would be unusual for someone to (for example) write a guide to understanding relativity without once mentioning Einstein, it also wouldn't be a fundamental flaw. (But I agree there's no certainly excuse for someone asserting that they're right because they're rational!)
- jerf 1y ago
  It may be easier to imagine someone trying to derive mathematics all by themselves, since it's less abstract. It's not that they won't come up with anything, it's that everything that even a genius can come up with in their lifetime will be something that the whole of humanity has long since come up with, chewed over, simplified, had a rebellion against, had a counter-rebellion against the rebellion, and ultimately packaged it up in a highly efficient manner into a textbook with cross-references to all sorts of angles on it and dozens of elaborations. You can't possible get through all this stuff all on your own. The problem is less clear in philosophy than mathematics, but it's still there. It's really easy on your own terms to come up with some idea that the collective intelligence has already revealed to be fatally flawed in some undeniable manner, or at the very least, has very powerful arguments against it that an individual may never consider. The ideas that have survived decades, centuries, and even millenia against the collective weight of humanity assaulting them are going to have a certain character that "something someone came up with last week" will lack. (That said I am quite heterodox in one way, which is that I'm not a big believer in reading primary sources, at least routinely. Personally I think that a lot of the primary sources noticeably lack the refinement and polish added as humanity chews it over and processes it and I prefer mostly pulling from the result of the process, and not from the one person who happened to introduce a particular idea. Such a source may be interesting for other reasons, but not in my opinion for philosophy.)
  - lechatonnoir 1y ago
    Well, sure, but mathematics is the domain for which this holds maybe the most true out of any. It's less true for fields which are not as old. I'm not sure if this counterpoint generalizes entirely to the original critique, since certainly LessWrongers aren't usually posting about or discussing math as if they've discovered it-- usually substantially more niche topics.
    - sanderjd 1y ago
      ... philosophy is if anything older than what we call mathematics.
voidhorse 1y ago
You're spot on here, and I think this is probably also why they appeal to programmers and people in software. I find a lot of people in software have an insufferable tendency to simply ignore entire bodies of prior art, prior research, etc. outside of maybe computer science (and even that can be rare), and yet they act as though they are the most studied participants in the subject, proudly proclaiming their "genius insights" that are essentially restatements of basic facts in any given field that they would have learned if they just bothered to, you know, actually do research and put aside their egos for half a second to wonder if maybe the eons of human activity prior to their precious existence might have led to some decent knowledge.
- nyeah 1y ago
  Yeah, though I think you may be exaggerating how often the "genius insights" rise to the level of correct restatements of basic facts. That happens, but it's not the rule.
- astrange 1y ago
  This is old engineer / old physicist syndrome. https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556 https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
Aurornis 1y ago
> But there also is an arrogance that "we are the ones thinking about this rationally, and we will figure this out". As if people hadn't been thinking and discussing and (verbally and literally) fighting over all sorts of adjacent and similar topics in philosophy and sociology and anthropology and ... clubs and seminars forever This is a feature, not a bug, for writers who hold an opinion on something and want to rationalize it. So many of the rationalist posts I've read through the years come from someone who has an opinion or gut feeling about something, but they want it to be seen as something more rigorous. The "first principles" writing style is a license to throw out the existing research on the topic, including contradictory evidence, and construct an all new scaffold around their opinion that makes it look more valid. I use the "SlimeTimeMoldTime - A Chemical Hunger" blog series as an example because it was so widely shared and endorsed in the rationalist community: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p... It even received a financial grant from Scott Alexander of Astral Codex Ten Actual experts were discrediting the series from the first blog post and explaining all of the author's errors, but the community soldiered on with it anyway, eventually making the belief that lithium in the water supply was causing the obesity epidemic into a meme within the rationalist community. There's no evidence supporting this and countless take-downs of how the author misinterpreted or cherry-picked data, but because it was written with the rationalist style and given the implicit blessing of a rationalist figurehead it was adopted as ground truth by many for years. People have been waking up to issues with the series for a while now, but at the time it was remarkable how quickly the idea spread as if it was a true, novel discovery.
- dwohnitmok 1y ago
  I don't read HN or LW all that often, but FWIW I actually learned about SlimeMoldTimeMold's "A Chemical Hunger" series from HN and then read its most famous takedown from LessWrong: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-probably-not-lithium https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba... (I don't remember any detailed takedowns of SlimeMoldTimeMold coming before that article, but maybe there are). I think that SlimeMoldTimeMold's rise and fall was actually a pretty big point in favor of the "rationalist community".

mitthrowaway2 1y ago

That's a fair point. Speaking only for myself, I think I fail to understand why it's important to situate philosophical discussions in the context of all the previous philosophers who have expressed related ideas, rather than simply discussing the ideas in isolation. I remember as a child coming to the same "if reality is a deception, at least I must exist to be deceived" conclusion that Descartes did, well before I had heard of Descartes. (I don't think this makes me special, it's just a natural conclusion anyone will reach if they ponder the subject). I think it's harmless for me to discuss that idea in public without someone saying "you need to read Descartes before you can talk about this". I also find my personal ethics are stronly aligned with what Kant espoused. But most people I talk to are not academic philosophers and have not read Kant, so when I want to explain my morals, I am better off explaining the ideas themselves than talking about Kant, which would be a distraction anyway because I didn't learn them from Kant, we just arrived at the same conclusions. If I'm talking with a philosopher I can just say "I'm a Kantian" as shorthand, but that's really just jargon for people who already know what I'm talking about. I also think that while it would be unusual for someone to (for example) write a guide to understanding relativity without once mentioning Einstein, it also wouldn't be a fundamental flaw. (But I agree there's no certainly excuse for someone asserting that they're right because they're rational!)

jerf 1y ago
It may be easier to imagine someone trying to derive mathematics all by themselves, since it's less abstract. It's not that they won't come up with anything, it's that everything that even a genius can come up with in their lifetime will be something that the whole of humanity has long since come up with, chewed over, simplified, had a rebellion against, had a counter-rebellion against the rebellion, and ultimately packaged it up in a highly efficient manner into a textbook with cross-references to all sorts of angles on it and dozens of elaborations. You can't possible get through all this stuff all on your own. The problem is less clear in philosophy than mathematics, but it's still there. It's really easy on your own terms to come up with some idea that the collective intelligence has already revealed to be fatally flawed in some undeniable manner, or at the very least, has very powerful arguments against it that an individual may never consider. The ideas that have survived decades, centuries, and even millenia against the collective weight of humanity assaulting them are going to have a certain character that "something someone came up with last week" will lack. (That said I am quite heterodox in one way, which is that I'm not a big believer in reading primary sources, at least routinely. Personally I think that a lot of the primary sources noticeably lack the refinement and polish added as humanity chews it over and processes it and I prefer mostly pulling from the result of the process, and not from the one person who happened to introduce a particular idea. Such a source may be interesting for other reasons, but not in my opinion for philosophy.)
- lechatonnoir 1y ago
  Well, sure, but mathematics is the domain for which this holds maybe the most true out of any. It's less true for fields which are not as old. I'm not sure if this counterpoint generalizes entirely to the original critique, since certainly LessWrongers aren't usually posting about or discussing math as if they've discovered it-- usually substantially more niche topics.
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    ... philosophy is if anything older than what we call mathematics.

voidhorse 1y ago

You're spot on here, and I think this is probably also why they appeal to programmers and people in software. I find a lot of people in software have an insufferable tendency to simply ignore entire bodies of prior art, prior research, etc. outside of maybe computer science (and even that can be rare), and yet they act as though they are the most studied participants in the subject, proudly proclaiming their "genius insights" that are essentially restatements of basic facts in any given field that they would have learned if they just bothered to, you know, actually do research and put aside their egos for half a second to wonder if maybe the eons of human activity prior to their precious existence might have led to some decent knowledge.

nyeah 1y ago
Yeah, though I think you may be exaggerating how often the "genius insights" rise to the level of correct restatements of basic facts. That happens, but it's not the rule.
astrange 1y ago
This is old engineer / old physicist syndrome. https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556 https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Aurornis 1y ago

> But there also is an arrogance that "we are the ones thinking about this rationally, and we will figure this out". As if people hadn't been thinking and discussing and (verbally and literally) fighting over all sorts of adjacent and similar topics in philosophy and sociology and anthropology and ... clubs and seminars forever This is a feature, not a bug, for writers who hold an opinion on something and want to rationalize it. So many of the rationalist posts I've read through the years come from someone who has an opinion or gut feeling about something, but they want it to be seen as something more rigorous. The "first principles" writing style is a license to throw out the existing research on the topic, including contradictory evidence, and construct an all new scaffold around their opinion that makes it look more valid. I use the "SlimeTimeMoldTime - A Chemical Hunger" blog series as an example because it was so widely shared and endorsed in the rationalist community: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p... It even received a financial grant from Scott Alexander of Astral Codex Ten Actual experts were discrediting the series from the first blog post and explaining all of the author's errors, but the community soldiered on with it anyway, eventually making the belief that lithium in the water supply was causing the obesity epidemic into a meme within the rationalist community. There's no evidence supporting this and countless take-downs of how the author misinterpreted or cherry-picked data, but because it was written with the rationalist style and given the implicit blessing of a rationalist figurehead it was adopted as ground truth by many for years. People have been waking up to issues with the series for a while now, but at the time it was remarkable how quickly the idea spread as if it was a true, novel discovery.

dwohnitmok 1y ago
I don't read HN or LW all that often, but FWIW I actually learned about SlimeMoldTimeMold's "A Chemical Hunger" series from HN and then read its most famous takedown from LessWrong: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-probably-not-lithium https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba... (I don't remember any detailed takedowns of SlimeMoldTimeMold coming before that article, but maybe there are). I think that SlimeMoldTimeMold's rise and fall was actually a pretty big point in favor of the "rationalist community".