|
Top-level
 @mcc I make a sharp distinction between actual Bayesian inference, which works just fine, and the caricature of it used by the "rationalist" / "effective altrusim" / LessWrong contingent. I had a conversation with one such person where he did not seem to understand what a probability distribution function was; but claimed to be doing Bayesian analysis to justify his personal misconceptions about physics & cosmology. He did not react well to my explaining that that is not how any of this works. 4 comments
 @michael_w_busch So if the methods of rationality, when presented to an average person in its obvious form, often lead them to developing weird misapprehensions and quickly misapplying the methods in fallacious ways that make them believe absurd or dangerous things… (2/4) @michael_w_busch …that doesn't sound like it's making the world better! If a toolset is dangerous unless used properly but in practice many people who pick it up in good faith immediately start using it wrong, that seems like it might indicate a problem with the tool. Maybe we need to redesign either the tool or how people are taught to use it. (3/4) @michael_w_busch Now, maybe you'd argue from here that bayesian analysis is a tool which is useful in specific, limited situations and not an appropriate fundamental basis for an entire worldview or system of morality. If so then I would agree… (4/4) |
Gregory's Server
@michael_w_busch
So, I think that this is a perfectly good perspective!
However, there's a problem. The "rationalism" I originally got interested in, 2005-ish and pre-"God Delusion", appealed to me as a way of making the world better or clarifying our own thinking to the point where we would be able to effectively apply ourselves toward making the world better. (1/4)