3 ms·

Is 'rationalism' supposed to mean everything even so minor is supposed to be correct all the time, which is probabilistically unachievable? In LessWrong I have

Is 'rationalism' supposed to mean everything even so minor is supposed to be correct all the time, which is probabilistically unachievable? In LessWrong I have received much help as far as career advice, opportunities, and support. Look at the list of top contributors, is all that they have done supposed to be forsaken over some minor 'blemish'? Who cares. Some guy just got banned randomly. What about people who get hell-banned here? What about the guy who is creating that christian operating system that can communicate with god who is obviously insane? Is banning him a smear against the mods? No relax, look at the sum of good in the totality, not in the minor.

anigbrowl 12y ago
No, but rationalism should include an awareness of the limits of one's own capacity for rational thought/action. Not a limit to rationality itself, but a recognition of the fact that we often lack sufficient information for complete moral certainty, and should therefore be very cautious when enumerating our priors, lest we make a logical decision based upon a false premise. I'm making a general point here rather than one about Yudlowski and co. I'm rather a hard-core utilitarian myself but I can't really get into LessWrong - seems too cliquish and I would end up engaged in fruitless arguments.
- eruditely 12y ago
  Alright, well do as you please of course. I have about one post there, yet it offers real and legitimate value. Read the discussion forums and blogs and you'll see that it's not quite like that. I think a lot of peoples opinions of it are formed over a glossed examination. In reality it's not like that, it creates an annoying initial impression(it did with me), but over time I found the value. It's just not possible to be so completely rational all the time. Cut some guy a break. Come on.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I don't think they're bad or that you ought not to spend time there. I'm just saying it would not be a good idea for me, despite the many likable aspects of the community there.
joesmo 12y ago
Well I would hope that one nonsensical post is certainly not reflective of the whole community. The post itself is nonsense and certainly has nothing to do with rationalism or reason.

anigbrowl 12y ago

No, but rationalism should include an awareness of the limits of one's own capacity for rational thought/action. Not a limit to rationality itself, but a recognition of the fact that we often lack sufficient information for complete moral certainty, and should therefore be very cautious when enumerating our priors, lest we make a logical decision based upon a false premise. I'm making a general point here rather than one about Yudlowski and co. I'm rather a hard-core utilitarian myself but I can't really get into LessWrong - seems too cliquish and I would end up engaged in fruitless arguments.

eruditely 12y ago
Alright, well do as you please of course. I have about one post there, yet it offers real and legitimate value. Read the discussion forums and blogs and you'll see that it's not quite like that. I think a lot of peoples opinions of it are formed over a glossed examination. In reality it's not like that, it creates an annoying initial impression(it did with me), but over time I found the value. It's just not possible to be so completely rational all the time. Cut some guy a break. Come on.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I don't think they're bad or that you ought not to spend time there. I'm just saying it would not be a good idea for me, despite the many likable aspects of the community there.

joesmo 12y ago

Well I would hope that one nonsensical post is certainly not reflective of the whole community. The post itself is nonsense and certainly has nothing to do with rationalism or reason.