@felipec's banner p

felipec

unbelief

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 04 19:55:17 UTC

Freedom of speech maximalist who is anti-woke, anti-orthodoxy, anti-establishment, and anti-capitalist.

Verified Email 

				
User ID: 1796


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
felipec


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
unbelief

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 November 04 19:55:17 UTC
				


				
					

					
Freedom of speech maximalist who is anti-woke, anti-orthodoxy, anti-establishment, and anti-capitalist.



				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1796


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


    

  • blog post that does not satisfy the community's preferences and does not offer novel insights = disliked.
    • 





There's a difference between not offering novel insight, and not offering novel insight according to the person downvoting.


That's my whole contention.




Let's take your idea about Karl Popper's falsifiability principle:




I said "if the principle hadn't already been laid out", that means it would be novel today. If it were novel today, plenty of people would think that it wasn't novel. People make the assumption that simple concepts cannot be novel, because somebody intelligent surely must have already thought about it. Right?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


no, people here are as smart or smarter than everywhere else




That doesn't prevent one from pretending. A person can be 130 which is way smarter than most people, and yet pretend to be 145.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


My example, that I made up on the spot, that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter that will grant you one wish if you sing certain words every night for one year, is not impossible, just extremely unlikely?




Yes. That's a foundation of science: you cannot know something with 100% certainty.




The fact that you cannot do the same would seem to indicate a failure in your rationality, in my opinion.




I did not say I cannot do the same, I said do not do the same.


This is shifting the burden of proof: you want me to prove to you how X is not impossible. I don't have to do that, because I'm not making any claim. You can believe whatever you want.


If you want me to believe that X is impossible, then you have the burden of proof. But you can't do that, so you have no justification in questioning my unbelief.


I am perfectly entitled to stay in my skepticism. What you do is up to you, I'm not questioning your belief.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Are you saying you can believe something you know to be false?




Yes, you know X is false, so you believe X is false. But an agnostic is not someone who believes X is false, is one who doesn't believe X.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The sin of the Dr. John here is credulity in believing Taleb's assertion that coin will be fair but Fat Tony's priors have equally been captured.




I have done the experiment with academics without mentioning that the coin is fair, the result is the same: they assume the probability is 0.5.




The real lesson if any can be taken from this story is don't play sketchy probability games with other people's coins/dice.




Yes, because everyone knows thought experiments don't translate to the real world.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I understand that, but generally implies that there has to be some exceptions.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fair enough. I think article 1 would be trashed and article 2 praised, but that might be just my experience.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The correctness of your position is a matter of fact.




According to you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


My point being that in Z/4Z, 2+2=0 and 2+2=4 are the same statement.




Which most people do not understand. Most people don't know what Z/4Z is, and most people don't know there exists more than one arithmetic.


You are ignoring my point that most people don't know that integers modulo n exist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Sure, you can easily "dupe" people and intentionally get them to engage with you by saying stupid shit on Twitter. That's not particularly intelligent or insightful. Ditto for Trump.




Sure, that's your opinion, but in the real world: it works.




He doesn't seem to have talked about the "very fine people" quote at all.




He didn't have to, people searched for it. Barbra Streisand didn't have share a link to her house, but by starting a lawsuit, everyone searched for her mansion, which is what created Streisand effect. This is memology 101.


That's the whole point of the dupe: the actions of the target create unintended consequences. It doesn't matter what the target consciously does.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Using a contrived example to warn us against trusting contrived examples.




It's only a "contrived example" after you have seen the result, which was intended for you to see. Con artists rely on contrived schemes that are not easy for you see before; their objective is the opposite. This is what happened with Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes, and Sam Bankman-Fried. You think you are able to see the "contrived examples" before the fact, well, everybody does, and that's precisely what the next con artist relies on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Whom to believe? I wouldn't know unless I had spent really long time studying dynamics of bridge safety.




If you don't know who to believe, then don't believe anyone. Why must people trust anybody?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
OK. But then I do get it: 2+2 = 0 (mod 4).


Yes, without any other context 2+2 is assumed to be 4, but 2+2 (mod 4) is a different thing, because 2 and 2 (mod 4) are different (the latter is actually {..,-6,-2,2,6,...}). Correct?


I have updated the article to be more correct.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'm willing to engage in open debate with you, and your chance to convince me depends on the correctness of your position.




And who decides the correctness of my position? You. So in order for me to be able to convince you that X may be true, I first have to convince you that X may be true, but X cannot be true, because you have decided that the position that X may be true is not correct, why? Because X cannot be true.


How is this not the definition of circular reasoning?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?




No. That less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=0?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Your assertion that Ligma Johnson was a genius 5D chess maneuver designed to undermine the authority of modern journalism




I did not assert that.




They involve 'deception' in the sense that Krugman doesn't really care if Adams votes for Trump or not, he was using Adams' tweet to make his own point.




But he didn't make his own point, because his own followers saw that he was fooled.




Ethos matters. If your essay is 'wow, look at all these points from people who also hate the woke like I do'




Which it isn't.


So, before criticizing what was being said, it would behoove you to actually listen to what was being said.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


By "the claim being not necessarily true", are you referring to the possibility that the claim's originator is expressing a belief contrary to truth, or the possibility that the claim's recipient is interpreting the claim differently in such a way as to make it the received belief incorrect?




Neither. I said the claim's originator considers the possibility that the claim might not be necessarily true. This is expressed in modal logic as ◇⊥ (possibly false), or ¬□⊤ (not necessarily true).


It's not about whether or not the claim is really true or not, or if it has been substantiated... It's about you believing it might be false.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't think perceived complexity takes priority all that often.




Which article would you bet receives more upvotes? 1) An article which is easily accessible by the general public, treats a simple common topic in a novel way, and has zero references to lesswrong-specific terms. 2) An article which is completely inaccessible to the general public, analyzes a complex topic, has a dozen lesswrong-specific terms, and references 4 lesswrong-like articles.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm sure you've heard the idea that the LessWrong movement is a cult. I'm not going to claim that because I don't know enough about it yet, but it does have a certain feeling of that. I see a lot of self-referencing: many terms are used only within the movement, and many articles refer to other articles within, which in turn refer to other articles. Too many inside jokes.


So for an article to gain top-shelf status it seems it has to use so many inside terms--and preferably inside terms that in turn require inside terms to understand--that only people on the inside could get, not the "normies".


So a "normie" article would just not cut it, regardless of useful the insight, especially if the insight is accesible by anyone (the plebs). I guess elitist is the word.


There's also an element of converse error fallacy (I've seen that a lot): "this seems trivial to me (and I'm rather intelligent), therefore it has to be trivial". But simple does not necessarily mean trivial.


I want to write a whole article about this, but take for example Karl Popper's falsifiability principle: it's exceedingly simple and yet it's anything but inconsequential. I'm pretty sure if the principle hadn't already been laid out, it would have been dismissed in this forum because "it's trivial".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Essentially quality posts on non-contentious trivial topics are going to be ignored by the community, the same posts on contentious trivial ones (trivial in the sense the majority of people believe they have an answer, largely culture war issues) will be feted




But that hasn't been my experience. The contentious trivial topics I've tried to talk about gather a lot of feedback, they are not ignored at all: they are lambasted.




The world's best explanation on logical equivalencies and truth tables would be almost entirely ignored here, for example. It's a useful topic to understand but the number of people here who don't grok basic formal logic is probably very small.




Yes, but this presumes that there is a formal logic, when in fact there's many formal logics. One user might say question X is trivial, but that's only in classical first-order logic, in other logics it might not be so trivial. See for example this entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Classical Logic, I would say it's anything but simple. And of course it has an entire section explaining this isn't the "one right logic", there's many critics and alternatives:




However, as noted, the main meta-theoretic properties of classical, first-order logic lead to expressive limitations of the formal languages and model-theoretic semantics. Key notions, like finitude, countability, minimal closure, natural number, and the like cannot be expressed.




I think it's clearly a fallacy to think that X is trivial because under a particular view (classical first-order logic) it is trivial. Just because something appears trivial doesn't mean that it is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This presumes the people are actually more knowledgeable. If people are generally more knowledgeable than you, then simplifying a complex concept for you is desirable, but what if in a certain case you are more knowledgeable? In those cases simplifying complex concepts is just condescending.


Haven't you encountered one of those cases when you are in fact the one more knowledgeable and people here still act as if they know more than you?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If so, well, a Bayesian wouldn't use just one number here either.




Do you have any source? Everyone I've debated says it's a single number: 50%.


This article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes to great lengths to explain why the standard view of degree of belief is limited and proposes alternative views using imprecise probabilities: Imprecise Probabilities. It seems to confirm my belief that Bayesians consider only a single probability.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That doesn't mean you're right, though.




I thoroughly accept the possibility that my tone is indeed smug.


Here's the asymmetry between you (plural) and me though: I am willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong, you are not. None of the critics of my tone ever accept the remote possibility that they might be wrong.


It is precisely because I accept that possibility that I'm willing to debate it.




At least in some cases it's just that they don't think there's much value in debating with you.




To believe that is fine, but once again: it's an opinion, not a fact: they might be wrong. Maybe there is value in debating me.


This might feel like an infinite regress of "you might be wrong", "I might be wrong about you being wrong", etc. But it's not because I'm not claiming that you are necessarily wrong, and also there's an easy escape: be charitable.


That's why giving people the benefit of the doubt and being charitable is generally good.




I think there's a reason that your articles reliably hit negative score, and it's not because of some kind of mass well-poisoning attempt.




You can be wrong though. Correct?




I think right now you're blaming that on everything except "people don't like my articles"




Once again: you can be wrong.


And here's one piece of evidence that suggests you might be wrong: people in fact do like my articles. Many straight up tell me: "really good article". They heart my articles, they upvote them, share them, retweet them, and even post them in different forums.




at some point you need to ask "what can I do to make my articles more convincing and interesting".




Many people don't share your opinion that they are unconvincing or uninteresting, you are committing the same fallacy of elevating your opinion to a fact.


But fine, let's just say that all the people that like my articles are wrong, what can I do to improve my articles? You don't want to tell me, or you want to tell me, but not for me to reply and engage in a debate.




Whereas what you're doing right now is arguing with people regarding whether or not they like your articles.




No. I'm making the point that /u/magic9mushroom is elevating his opinions that my articles are "smug" and "wrong". If he doesn't like my articles, that's fine, that's his subjective opinion, but that's not what he is saying. It's a fact that he is attempting to poison the well, and instead of engaging with my point you are ignoring it and joining the bandwagon by adding your own opinion.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's not the same direction. In subthread a I'm talking about why I don't believe it's good to elevate options to facts, I'm not talking about who/what was claimed to be smug anymore.


In this subthread b I'm asking a simple question: doesn't that say that I was wrong?


In fact before I started subthread b I was going to make a comment in subthread a that I don't believe if I had said "the tone was not smug, you believed it was smug" my point would not have changed at all, even if more technically correct, your initial comment (he said the tone was smug) would not have applied, and I'm pretty sure I still would have been downvoted.


I removed that comment because I didn't want to muddle my point, and I believe it's relatively unimportant what might have happened had I said something else. If you really believe it would have made a difference, I can edit the comment, but I don't think anything would change.


Then I read that he did in fact called me smug a few sentences later, so even if I'm not talking about "my tone"/"the tone" in subthread a anymore (I'm talking about something more important: my original point), I wonder if you still believe he didn't call me smug, when in fact he straight up did. You don't have to answer.


My actual point is in subthread a.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How ludicrous does the example have to be before you are comfortable with a position of "innocent"?




There is no such thing.




If you are truly just skeptical (after all there is no evidence that such a teapot doesn't exist), then you would of course be singing every night, correct?




False. That would require me believing guilty.




Why take the innocent position and risk missing out on such a reward?




I'm not taking the innocent position. I'm not taking any position.




Unlikely events do happen all the time, but it seems to me your method of thinking is what allows people to believe that impossible things can/have happened, usually defended with "You can't prove it didn't"




Your example is not impossible, just extremely unlikely. If you tell me the teapot has the shape of a triangle with four sides, well, that is truly impossible and I would say innocent.