> For those expecting everything from the sequences to be represented, you will be let down. For example, he says little more about quantum mechanics other than that "most physicists believe there is irreducible randomness in the subatomic realm of quantum mechanics". Compare that to the sequence on quantum mechanics here which forcefully argued for the deterministic many worlds interpretation.
They misspelled "[ignorantly](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/po1yqv/short_of_content_lesswrong_pilots_500_payments/hd5winu/?context=3)".
What might have been a threat 10,000 years ago—such as a tiger in the
bushes—is no longer a major threat; conversely, some threats—like car
crashes—are entirely new, and thus, the human brain is ill-equipped to
evaluate them rationally.
As an example, he analyzes a passage from Andrew Yang’s presidential
campaign, which claimed, “The smartest people in the world now predict
that ⅓ of Americans will lose their job to automation in 12 years.”
Pinker labels such reasoning a “mild example of the argument from
authority”.
Isn’t this pretty damning? (As in, damning for Steven’s abilities as
a rationalist.)
Appeals to authority are not at all categorically weak. A lot of
Inadequate Equilibria was about figuring out when it is and is not
plausible to out-compete authority. Saying “Professionals say it’s hard
to predict Microsoft’s stock price, so you won’t be able to” is also an
argument from authority; it’s also an extremely strong argument.
There has to be a name for the fallacy of thinking that a common term
with negative association like “argument from authority” automatically
means something even when it doesn’t… ? Someone help me out here.
Also – choosing Yang as an example of irrationality in politics?
Really? I guess I’m supposed to think that any example is okay as long
as it’s legit (this one arguably isn’t, anyway), but in fact, being
named as an example is Bayesian evidence that the author thinks you are
altogether irrational, and people are probably going to understand it
that way.
they're halfway there
appeals to false authority are fallacious, but appeals to credible authority are the only way any of us will ever trust 99% of what we know
it's just a problem of who trusts "the smartest people in the world" vs. "professionals"
> appeals to false authority are fallacious, but appeals to credible authority
Well, that kinda gets you back to square one though. You are just moving the onus from the argument to the person.
always has been
call me a Bayesian if you must but I don't think the odds are very good that some peculiar argument buried in a 10,000-word blog post written by a computer programmer in his spare time based on skimming some abstracts and reading (a review of) one book is going to overturn a consensus of the experts in a completely unrelated field of knowledge, even before I see what the argument is
and that's the difference between me and a Rationalist
I both agree, and its worth mentioning that it does happen sometimes (cf Moneyball).
This is less an argument for the supremacy if computer programmers than for sports coaching having been an old boys club in the past.
> one book is going to overturn a consensus of the experts in a completely unrelated field of knowledge
Of course.
But "futurology" (if so we could call it) isn't really a field of knowledge like medicine, if I can explain.
Counterpoint: “The Tiger”, by Nael, age 6
lolz
A choice comment:
This saving for retirement anecdote is so fucking wild. Median income is nowhere near high enough for it to mean anything, harebrain!