Rationality done right is the pursuit of an unobtainable goal that yields better-than-average results even as you ultimately fall short of the ideal. So, basically like any other form of self-improvement. When you inevitably hit a setback, reorient and adjust your approach. But don't beat yourself up when you continue to fall short, because you will. We all will.
To me that shows a lot of overconfidence. Even as I make statements saying that ivermectin isn't a generally effective treatment for COVID, I fully accept that it's possible my reasoning and interpretation of the evidence could be faulty and that some future study could somehow demonstrate a slam-dunk benefit even for countries with no level of parasitic infections, like the US. If that happened (seems very unlikely, but not impossible) I would change my statement (as would the mainstream medical establishment). The author of the above article doesn't really show that level of epistemic humility.
Interact with them long enough and you'll come across a whole lot who act like it.
What do you even think I'm strawmanning? That comment is a defense of Scott Alexander and rationalists generally.
1. They like rationality, and feel it's opposed by 'irrationality'.
2. They want to be part of some 'rational group'.
3. They're ignorant enough not to know the name is already taken.
4. They're ignorant enough not to know that the name means pretty much the opposite of what they believe. (A real rationalist, for instance, probably wouldn't be interested in modern science).
5. They're ignorant enough not to know that 'rational' and 'irrational' are usually demarcate lines of social hierarchy, not lines of theoretical commitment.
This is an attractive pitch, so obviously, loads of people jump on. I think the main thing that's nice about it is that no real work is called for. Every smart white kid from a nice background has been called 'logical' or 'rational' at some point, because (5), so it's a value they identify with. It's a young group, full of energy, because the internet is biased young, and young people go for (2) through (5).
Overloads are a thing, you know?
> 4. They're ignorant enough not to know that the name means pretty much the opposite of what they believe.
String of characters doesn't mean anything by itself, it can point to meaning (or several).
> 5. They're ignorant enough not to know that 'rational' and 'irrational' are usually demarcate lines of social hierarchy, not lines of theoretical commitment.
By whom, and why is their use of the word supposed to be the default?
> I think the main thing that's nice about it is that no real work is called for.
Lol no. You might want to look back at your comment. Specifically, "I guess". You've done a lot of judging, without doing a shred of work to verify whether your insults are true.
"They're ignorant enough", repeated several times, despite utter ignorance about people you're talking about.
Anyway. "Rationalist" is aspirational, not a claim of one's own rationality.
Sure, this naming kinda sucks because it's unclear.
That's what the rationalist thing is, more or less. I think you can probably argue that the military guys should take you seriously because you have lots of clever ideas, but you can probably also understand it's kinda ridiculous and bonkers.
And look at all these idiots using the word "computer" to mean an electronic computation device! They must be super ignorant to not realize the word was already taken to mean human beings who perform computations as their job!
I would like to be more rational in my thoughts and decisions. I would like it if others were as well. I find that reading articles by so-called "rationalists", and reading debate around them, seems to help me do that. Not surprising, since that is their exact stated goal as well.
As far as what "rational" means:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rational
1. Capable of reasoning.
2. Logically sound; not contradictory or otherwise absurd.
3. Healthy or balanced intellectually; exhibiting reasonableness.
4-7. [Math, chemistry, and physics stuff]
Hmm, nothing about social hierarchy or about how you're not allowed to use that word if you're not a 17th century French philosopher. What the hell are you on about, and why are you so concerned about gatekeeping this word?
PS: I'm not sure if it's gatekeeping to expect people who are interested in something to know a word you would learn in the first hour(s?) of learning about it. But if so, I am fully behind it.
Rationalism ( https://sjp.pwn.pl/sjp/racjonalizm;2573228.html ):
3. "a position requiring the observance of restrictive standards of the scientificity of knowledge"
I personally prefer that meaning of the word.
"Rationalism" descends from analytic philosophy/logical positivism/scientific method types, so they're into experiments now. This is good, because their main program of logical positivism doesn't actually work, so it's kind of a problem that they're still trying to do it.
[0] the world doesn't exist, there's only sense data causing you to imagine a shared world, thinking about things logically is better than trying them out
This is false. Rationalism predates analytic philosophy by nearly 300 years. Maybe you mean "rationalism" does.
I'm not that well versed in analytic philosophy - I think it's come a long way since the early days, so now straddles both sides of the rationalist/empiricist divide. At this point, I think it's basically a writing style. You get a lot of analytic philosophers with some pretty wild assertions about reality.
On the other side, somebody like Deleuze is basically a hardcore empiricist, but he's as 'continental' as they come.
Imagine the hubris to claim ignorance of another when oneself is ignorant that rationalists already know this and it was a mistaken momentum thing.
I guess it could be just really perverse usage, but I figure it's more like 'objectivism', or 'scientology', words that sound big and impressive to people who are either dumb, or just not very well informed.
You can't really change a term like rationalism, since it's really one of the biggest terms in philosophy, and philosophers are the kind of people who get upset when people use stuff like 'begging the question' wrong, which everybody does. So even if the 'rationalists' ended up having loads of great insights despite their inauspicious start, it would almost certainly never change the meaning of the word.
> This is still just a possibility. Maybe I’m over-focusing too hard on a couple positive results and this will all turn out to be nothing. Or who knows, maybe ivermectin does work against COVID a little - although it would have to be very little, fading to not at all in temperate worm-free countries. But this theory feels right to me.
> It feels right to me because it’s the most troll-ish possible solution. Everybody was wrong!
Actually, if it does pan out, score 1 for the conspiracy theorists. If you actually asked them by what mechanism they thought Ivermectin worked, they really had only two answers, and "alleviating strain on your immune system by killing parasites you didn't know you had" was one of them, from very early on.
if the content of the article was not heresy and instead came from some trusted scientific authority, this would not be the case.
The people who are working on COVID are too fucking busy to waste their time arguing with kooks who claim they are rational.
So I worded it more diplomatically, or ambiguously.
Shame; it’s interesting to get challenged. At least I got to read it before it got flushed.
Empiricism is only useful when it adequately adopts Occam's Razor to stay focused on the facts and has a clear understanding of the difference between correlation and causality.
Want to disprove a mainstream position? Find a commonly held false assumption or some fact that cannot be explained by the current approaches. Keep it simple and be open to having this point explained with standard methods.
Read T.S. Kuhn if necessary to understand what it typically takes to change a scientific paradigm.
Everything else is just noise with the purpose of making a given community feel enlightened or smarter than the other "fools".
The rest reads like gibberish.
> Step 6: Semi-Permeable Membranes
> One thing that shocked me was how hard it was to discuss even a simple thing with Scott, even when he knew I could have made a big deal about this without giving him an opportunity to make whatever correction he thought appropriate. It felt like communicating through a straw. I get the sense that Scott is busy. Busy and/or surrounded by people who think the world of him; a community of readers that compliment his writing early and often.
This piece also shares several other characteristics of "rationalist" writings: Unnecessarily long and rambling prose, flowery language and dramatic subsection titles when basic text would suffice, hedging in the middle of the article in case the author turns out to be incorrect, and a relentless insistence that the conversation revolve around their experience and some perceived sleights instead of letting the argument stand alone.
Regardless, this seems like a silly diatribe after the medical community has already investigated the Ivermectin idea to great lengths and at massive scale and concluded that any effects it might have are too small to be worth pursuing. It's weird to see someone writing volumes about re-litigating last years' amateur scientist social media battles.
This author is either obsessed with Ivermectin and the TOGETHER trial or playing a game to pander his Substack to a certain audience who loves this content. His first post was only a month ago but he's already written 11 articles suggesting errors and alluding to conspiracy theories.
Many rationalists are driven by contrarianism and are the living embodiments of second-option bias[1] and confirmation bias, so I don't find it weird anymore that they're still relitigating such issues, I just expect things like this from that crowd, now.
once i accepted that to be more rational I had to accept that I was not completely rational, I was able to reason more probabilistically. This helps, because there is actually no physical system that is truly logical (except for a bit, and making a logical bit is nontrivial), but rather, the only way to understand physical system is to apply probablistic (not logical) reasoning; think of the difference btween a perfect step function/dirac delta function versus a sigmoid.
Thanks for the pointer to second option bias. I can already see I'm going to waste part of the rest of my day finding the part of rationalwiki where it turns out my beliefs were anticipated by Wittgenstein.
Well, this is defensible, since if you read this with s/is true/gets an increased probability of truth/ it's just Bayesianism. Sadly, sometimes people are waiting till later to find out which contradictory thing is true, but sometimes they're just bullshitting.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kz9zMgWB5C27Pmdkh/common-kno...
We’re all sinners.
Part of the point of the article you're commenting on is that the topic is not, in fact, settled.
I’m about to start calling them what they are: Sophists.
Well, how do you know someone is a rationalist? Don't worry, he will tell you soon that he's "updating".
...and then there is the rest of the community. They cargo-cult all the phrases and hobbies and opinions, but it's like when you wore that first suit: it wasn't yours, you didn't have the shoulders, and everyone but you knew it looked ridiculous. Seriously: even the other well-known people from that community (whose names I've since forgotten) are so obviously cosplaying the intellectualism. Even in the natural science I studied, I would not be able to identify the smart and the not-so-smart papers or professors with such ease.
