“I wrote a book about my personal definition of a set of rules,
but someone else used those rules to show that my definition was bad.
But there can’t be another definition of those rules because I
wrote a book about those rules. That means I win.”
It's true to form, since it's right out of the Evolutionary Psychology playbook. Take any silly story that claims to have evolution as a premise, and pretend that objections to the story are rejections of evolution.
(How many times have we heard it: "Evolution didn't stop at the neck!" No shit. The need for evidence didn't stop there, either.)
But undermining their case, the improved ability to make objections to evolutionary psychology, which they are using, has evolved to impress females and improve mating success.
I used to get into semi-regular heated debates with a friend of mine on the whole evo-bio-IQ thing. I would bring up piles of things that could have an effect on IQ and he would brush them off with "well everyone in the rationalist community says otherwise, and they're smarter than you, so you're wrong."
"Evolution didn't stop at the neck" was one of his favorite catchphrases. I always hated it because you're exactly right, the need for evidence doesn't stop there.
Idly, I checked to see if there was any more in this vein. Thus:
I’ve done many podcasts about Rationality, but my conversation with
@michaelshermer was among the best -
wide-ranging, deep, and ranging over topics I haven’t discussed
elsewhere. Videorecorded in Shermer’s Home in Santa Barbara.
There’s instrumental rationality, which refers to using reason to
accomplish a goal like maximuzing profit for a company, and there’s
value rationality, which refers to reason which finds the right
goals.
So far, LW and Pinker are focused all on value rationality in
practice (EA, AGI) rather than its more practical cousin although they
fetishize the free market for is instrumental rationality.
If they really valued instrumental rationality, they would stop
acting so weird and would outwardly be normies but act more
efficiently.
Also the average person has less use for values rationality than
instrumental rationality (self-help books, time management etc.)
The whole point of the Rationalsphere is to create such a great
barrier (time spent reading the Sequences, money sent to MIRI) that the
average person can never pursue reason - kinda like esoteric occult
groups of the early 20th century
You can use rationality to argue about things, even the shortcomings
of rationality. No point is undermined by the use of rationality.
If I advocate for not using phones underwater I am not a hypocrite
for posting this on a phone while I am not underwater. And if I were a
hypocrite using their phone underwater, you would still need to argue
against what I said and not what I am doing.
I think enemies of philosophy face a very similar problem: Once you're arguing against philosophy, you're already *doing philosophy*, in some sense: For every [Tahāfut al-Falāsifaʰ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers) there's an equivalent & opposite [Tahāfut al-Tahāfut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Incoherence).
**[The Incoherence of the Philosophers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers)**
>The Incoherence of the Philosophers (تهافت الفلاسفة Tahāfut al-Falāsifaʰ in Arabic) is the title of a landmark 11th-century work by the Persian theologian Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazali and a student of the Asharite school of Islamic theology criticizing the Avicennian school of early Islamic philosophy. Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi (Alpharabius) are denounced in this book, as they follow Greek philosophy even when it contradicts Islam. The text was dramatically successful, and marked a milestone in the ascendance of the Asharite school within Islamic philosophy and theological discourse.
**[The Incoherence of the Incoherence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Incoherence)**
>The Incoherence of the Incoherence (Arabic: تهافت التهافت Tahāfut al-Tahāfut) by Andalusian Muslim polymath and philosopher Averroes (Arabic ابن رشد, ibn Rushd, 1126–1198) is an important Islamic philosophical treatise in which the author defends the use of Aristotelian philosophy within Islamic thought. It was written in the style of a dialogue against al-Ghazali's claims in The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahāfut al-Falasifa), which criticized Neoplatonic thought. Originally written in Arabic, The Incoherence of the Incoherence was subsequently translated into many other languages.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Pretty sure this is a fallacy. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t
think critics of the book “rationality” are critiquing the concept of
rationality. He is just using the name of his book to deflect
criticism.
“My colleague and fellow esteemed gentleman of Harvard neglects to consider the premise that I am rubber and he is glue.”
undermines his case, as all skeptics of rationality must do, by typing it on an iPhone, which was made by rationality
“I wrote a book about my personal definition of a set of rules, but someone else used those rules to show that my definition was bad. But there can’t be another definition of those rules because I wrote a book about those rules. That means I win.”
Got it Dr. Pinker. You would rather I critique you with jokes, sneers and pictures of you with Epstein. On it!
Writing a book called Truth. It has only one sentence: Steven Pinker licks poops. Critics beware.
Wow, I guess Harvard here didnt realize that rationality is an overloaded term with multiple meanings in different contexts. How embarrassing.
In before: it’s just joke lol
God, what an obnoxious twat.
Idly, I checked to see if there was any more in this vein. Thus:
At some point, I’m willing to judge a man by the company he keeps.
There’s instrumental rationality, which refers to using reason to accomplish a goal like maximuzing profit for a company, and there’s value rationality, which refers to reason which finds the right goals.
So far, LW and Pinker are focused all on value rationality in practice (EA, AGI) rather than its more practical cousin although they fetishize the free market for is instrumental rationality.
If they really valued instrumental rationality, they would stop acting so weird and would outwardly be normies but act more efficiently.
Also the average person has less use for values rationality than instrumental rationality (self-help books, time management etc.)
The whole point of the Rationalsphere is to create such a great barrier (time spent reading the Sequences, money sent to MIRI) that the average person can never pursue reason - kinda like esoteric occult groups of the early 20th century
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_value_rationality
Holy shit, he IS very intelligent.
Not taking a stance here, however…
You can use rationality to argue about things, even the shortcomings of rationality. No point is undermined by the use of rationality.
If I advocate for not using phones underwater I am not a hypocrite for posting this on a phone while I am not underwater. And if I were a hypocrite using their phone underwater, you would still need to argue against what I said and not what I am doing.
Pretty sure this is a fallacy. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think critics of the book “rationality” are critiquing the concept of rationality. He is just using the name of his book to deflect criticism.
“My opponent doesn’t understand that I am REASON MAN, and so to use reason to critique me is ILLOGICAL.”
“Critique of Pure Reason” would be, by definition, UN-reasonable, so Kant is being unreasonable and his arguments are invalid. GOT ’EM.
…and thus rendering my book a good one
I love Howard Gardner. More now.