LessWrong

Subject: LessWrong Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:48 pm

Martin,

how do discussions/disagreement go over at Lesswrong.com? Do you notice a considerably more open, rational and sympathetioc atmosphere than you would find on other, say, philosophy/science related sites? (I don't always get such a vibe from Robin Hanson btw)

_________________
My Blog

Number of posts: 122 Registration date: 2010-02-08

Conrad wrote:

Martin,

how do discussions/disagreement go over at Lesswrong.com? Do you notice a considerably more open, rational and sympathetioc atmosphere than you would find on other, say, philosophy/science related sites? (I don't always get such a vibe from Robin Hanson btw)

Very good question.
It is NOT a philosophy site, but one for the art of rationality. There is a lot I learned from it, but it is also not the top of the mountain. To get a general view on what it is about, try reading the Harry Potter fanfic[!], one of the main writers started some time ago.
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality
That being said, the quality of discussions is higher than I experienced elsewhere. It can be/seem harsh for views that are widely discarded topics.
To pick the obvious example. Religion is not something Lesswrong readers usually consider worthwhile. It is interesting to look into the reasons why people make up gods, and why they end up believing in them and lots of other things around it. But not the validity of the claim of a higher being.

Now that being said it is also a place that completely lacks insults and ad hominems. People are friendly, and helpful. But in contrast to many other places friendliness does not get Karma points. Making good and correct comments does. If others think you are wrong, you get told so.

It is the very best existing community for thinking that I am aware of, but surely not the best possible imaginable.

Martin

Number of posts: 122 Registration date: 2010-02-08

Do add another point.
I think that philosophers should study physics and neuroscience before making their points. To some degree I get the impression that they try to think up stuff that actual science is figuring out already.
Dan Dennett would be someone that springs to mind.

Martin

Subject: Re: LessWrong Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:58 am

MartinB wrote:

Do add another point.
I think that philosophers should study physics and neuroscience before making their points.

And vice versa (no offense, Daniel friggin' Dennett)

_________________
My Blog