Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott1328
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Scott1328 » Tue May 05, 2015 2:43 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:And these are the paragons of rationality in the world today.
Not my paragons, I didn't vote for 'em.

User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:06 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Mr.Samsa » Tue May 05, 2015 3:36 am

Scott1328 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:And these are the paragons of rationality in the world today.
Not my paragons, I didn't vote for 'em.
Sorry, not paragons, I meant parallelograms. They're parallelograms of rationality.
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Seth » Tue May 05, 2015 4:09 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Scott1328 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:And these are the paragons of rationality in the world today.
Not my paragons, I didn't vote for 'em.
Sorry, not paragons, I meant parallelograms. They're parallelograms of rationality.
No, they are the obtuse triangles of rationality.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue May 05, 2015 6:06 am

Now there are good points in The Twelve Virtues like avoiding confirmation bias and not treating every hypothesis as equal though the prose is not as
one would expect given the subject matter. I have no idea if this is deliberate or not but logical concepts can only be written about in a specific way
One cannot be too liberal with terminology otherwise meaning can get lost in translation. It also seems too laboured. A simple definition of what the
scientific method is and the difference between evidence and proof plus a brief summary of the major logical fallacies would have been just enough
Bullet points written in plain and simple language which a child could understand so without any need for either hyperbole or metaphor. The Twelve
Virtues by comparison is some what deep and heavy and philosophical and even the title is pretentious. Science and maths are complex subjects but
that in and of itself is no reason to make explanations of them complex. And so less word salad and much tighter definitions would have been better

He says he was getting over quarter of a million hits a week when he started posting at Less Wrong so he obviously has some serious influence in the
artificial intelligence community. I also notice that he is mostly self taught. I take that to mean he has no formal higher education. However as long
as he himself is just as rigorous in his methodology as he expects others to be who read The Twelve Virtues then that should not really be a problem

On a totally different note I would very much like to see you post more if that be possible now. You do not really seem to want to return to Rat Skep
and though it is a lot quieter here you will not have Cito to deal with. He is a member but will not bother you as such. And so if you can now I would
be grateful to see you contribute more. I suspect a few others may also though I can only speak for myself as such. So just have a think about it now
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:06 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Mr.Samsa » Tue May 05, 2015 7:22 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Now there are good points in The Twelve Virtues like avoiding confirmation bias and not treating every hypothesis as equal though the prose is not as
one would expect given the subject matter.
Of course there are good points, he says nothing profound or insightful so reaching the minimum criteria of a "good" point is a practical inevitability.
surreptitious57 wrote:The Twelve
Virtues by comparison is some what deep and heavy and philosophical and even the title is pretentious.
But it's not deep or heavy or philosophical. It's a simplistic dealing of a topic wrapped in wankery.
surreptitious57 wrote:Science and maths are complex subjects but
that in and of itself is no reason to make explanations of them complex. And so less word salad and much tighter definitions would have been better
The problem is more that he needed to deal with them in a more complex way. Describing science as a leaf on the wind or whatever isn't helpful.
surreptitious57 wrote:He says he was getting over quarter of a million hits a week when he started posting at Less Wrong so he obviously has some serious influence in the
artificial intelligence community.
Just note that by "artificial intelligence community" you mean "crazy people online who like to talk about robots". He obviously holds no weight or relevance to actual experts on the topic (except occasionally when he tries to debate them and they laugh at him).
surreptitious57 wrote:I also notice that he is mostly self taught. I take that to mean he has no formal higher education. However as long
as he himself is just as rigorous in his methodology as he expects others to be who read The Twelve Virtues then that should not really be a problem
It's clear that he's "self-taught" as he doesn't know what he's talking about at all.
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.

User avatar
Scott1328
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Scott1328 » Tue May 12, 2015 5:51 pm

I wonder if any of the departed members will return now that Thwoth has stepped down as lead moderator.

User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:06 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Mr.Samsa » Wed May 13, 2015 12:04 am

Depends who takes up the throne and what they do with it. Kiore usually has a sensible head on his shoulders so he could make it work, it's just whether he has the will and patience to battle against all the other mods who want vaguely defined rules and subjective judgements of infractions to be the standard.
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by pErvinalia » Thu May 14, 2015 11:25 am

Twath is gone? That's good news. I wonder what numpty they will get to replace him?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu May 14, 2015 10:16 pm

I like Thwoth as a poster and he was quite reasonable when you PM'ed him. The problem with ratskep was the membership's inability to countenance the views that were different from the collective. To blame the mods for all the ebil in the world is to ignore the closed minded wolves of perpetual butthurt howling at their door demanding that some poster or other be banned for non groupthink.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by piscator » Thu May 14, 2015 10:39 pm

An employee of mine joined Ratskep. The first time he was involved in a debate, one of the mods started purposely misspelling his handle to mock him. Others joined in the fun as it went on.
The first time he did it, he got a modnote saying purposely misspelling a user's handle was against the rules. So he PM'd the staff with a few examples of when other members and particularly moderators did the same thing to him.
Ratskep never replied. So now no one I know personally has any use for Ratskep. :yawn:

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu May 14, 2015 10:59 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote: I have no time for evolutionary psychology and have called it out on this very forum but claiming we are not part of some biological determinism is akin to claiming we have free will. Are you seriousy claiming that people's political opinions are reached through analytical thought and not just emotional/peer pressure?
There are so many odd assumptions here that I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me as it seems to have little relevance to what I wrote. In case you did mean to respond to me, I'll try to clarify some points:

1) I haven't denied that biology plays a role. My claim is that it doesn't play the specific role that Eliezer needs it to. In other words, general biological functions or predispositions might lead us to a particular conclusion or behavior but that's not the same as saying that something is an evolutionary adaptation, which is a more restricted type of behavior.
I think it does, both evolution and human evolution still play a part in human tribalistic thinking or motivational thinking if you will. I can't say you and rEv are stupid because that would be false. I can say that to move beyond your tribalistic parameters makes you uncomfortable and therefore you come to the conclusion that it is wrong. You both rationalize feeling and then think you are rational.
2) even if my claim made implications about the existence of free will (it doesn't), that's not a problem. There are a number of good arguments in favour of free will and the acceptance or rejection of determinism doesn't necessarily have any relevance at all.
Non sequitur is a non sequitur, my apologies and ignore it.
3) where did the distinction between analytic and emotional reasoning come from? You seem to be conflating analytic with "non-biological" and emotional with "biological" when there's no reason to think that. Rejecting that there is a specific evolutionary adaptation towards political stances does not mean political stances are carefully reasoned out.
People can have analytic thought processes and critical thinking ability when it comes to politics. I'm simply pointing out that they decide to follow their feeling instead and then try rationalize their emotions. This works when it comes to politics so there is no need to change it except if you want an honest debate, which unfortunately most people don't. This is why politicians are not held in high esteem because they exploit this and are then blamed for the people's own gullibility.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Strontium Dog
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:28 am
About me: Navy Seals are not seals
Location: Liverpool, UK
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by Strontium Dog » Thu May 14, 2015 11:08 pm

piscator wrote:An employee of mine joined Ratskep. The first time he was involved in a debate, one of the mods started purposely misspelling his handle to mock him. Others joined in the fun as it went on.
The first time he did it, he got a modnote saying purposely misspelling a user's handle was against the rules. So he PM'd the staff with a few examples of when other members and particularly moderators did the same thing to him.
Ratskep never replied. So now no one I know personally has any use for Ratskep. :yawn:
Surely you're not implying there are double standards over there, are you? The very idea!
100% verifiable facts or your money back. Anti-fascist. Enemy of woo - theistic or otherwise. Cloth is not an antiviral. Imagination and fantasy is no substitute for tangible reality. Wishing doesn't make it real.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu May 14, 2015 11:08 pm

piscator wrote:An employee of mine joined Ratskep. The first time he was involved in a debate, one of the mods started purposely misspelling his handle to mock him. Others joined in the fun as it went on.
The first time he did it, he got a modnote saying purposely misspelling a user's handle was against the rules. So he PM'd the staff with a few examples of when other members and particularly moderators did the same thing to him.
Ratskep never replied. So now no one I know personally has any use for Ratskep. :yawn:
You are missing the whole point of ratskep as it allows closed minded people to believe they are intelligent and skeptical whilst living in an echo chamber. They also get to ban anyone who disagrees with the current narrative so it must be true. :thinks:
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by piscator » Fri May 15, 2015 12:01 am

Well, that site was formed from the culture clique of a noted firebrand and public figure of a contentious intellectual stance, so it doesn't take much effort to foresee it's going to attract people who want to contend. They knew they were bound to ban a lot of assholes.
Certain of the fora there are dominated by a clique of bitter people with too much time on their hands. This happens in forums. But at Ratskep there are a lot of mods and former mods in this crew, which doesn't speak well of the site's culture.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74151
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

Post by JimC » Fri May 15, 2015 12:14 am

piscator wrote:Well, that site was formed from the culture clique of a noted firebrand and public figure of a contentious intellectual stance, so it doesn't take much effort to foresee it's going to attract people who want to contend. They knew they were bound to ban a lot of assholes.
Certain of the fora there are dominated by a clique of bitter people with too much time on their hands. This happens in forums. But at Ratskep there are a lot of mods and former mods in this crew, which doesn't speak well of the site's culture.
Do you mean the RDF of old?

Rationalia, of course, was formed from the weirdest segment of RDF after it imploded... :tea:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests