@felipec's banner p

felipec

unbelief

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

				
User ID: 1796


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
felipec


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
unbelief

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 November 04 19:55:17 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1796


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I am simply commenting that your inability to concede that the extraordinary magic space teapot that I admit to you I fabricated on the spot does not possibly exist indicates a failure in your rationality.




I don't have an inability to do that. And even if I did, you are making an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. And if you think you can easily dismantle philosophical skepticism, I don't think you understand why it exists in the first place.




but the fact that you are not singing the song and dancing the dance (I assume) every night would indicate you don't think it exists any more than I do (which is not at all)




I specifically said I do not believe it exists. It seems you don't understand my position.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


So at the end you told them the probability was 50/50 and then asked them what the probability was?




No, I already said what I specifically did not ask them.




You did not.




I very clearly explained it in the article.




It not illustrating anything was the point




So it had absolutely nothing to do with my thought experiment.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Then as coins are flipped and you get results, this distribution of P gets updated and sooner or later it gets narrower around the real coin bias, just like you said it should happen.




Are you sure about that? Maybe you consider the distribution, and maybe some Bayesians do consider the distribution, but I've debated Scott Alexander, and I'm pretty sure he used a single number to arrive to the conclusion that doing something was rational.


I've been writing about uncertainty in my substack and I've felt a substantial amount of pushback regarding established concepts such as the burden of proof, not-guilty is not the same as innocent, and the null hypothesis implies uncertainty. Even ChatGPT seems to be confused about this.


I'm pretty certain that most people--even rationalists--do not factor uncertainty by default, which is why I don't think Bayesians thoroughly consider the difference between: 0/0, 50/50, or 500/500.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It merely makes 2+2=0 another representation of the same statement.




Do you believe that (2+2=4) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) is "the same statement"?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Math is not a mater of opinion, what math says is a matter of opinion.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Rationalists are too easily duped
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You've had an academic sit there and watch you flip a coin 99 times landing it on heads each time?




No. I ask them what is the probability that the next coin flip will land heads.




For it to be a thought experiment you'd need to have actually caught some flawed logic and worked out why it was flawed.




Which I did.




Taleb: "Fine I'll give you 4:1 odds, put up $300 and you can walk away with a cool hundred for catching me in a lie!"




That's 1:3 odds.




Taleb: "I told you it had a 50/50 chance of landing on tails, this is a normal result."




So? You haven't illustrated anything. According to you, you need to show the flawed logic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In my opinion a good writer is able to explain complex concepts with simple words. Obfuscation is a sign that the person is signaling intelligence rather than truly displaying it--or that he/she is a bad writer.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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.