Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kolmogorov option

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#81

Post by Frondo »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #67
Frondo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point of that one. He doesn't want to hurt other people, but realizes he won't know all the ways he could do so accidentally. So, in the interest of not hurting people, if he is unsure whether something will or not, he'll defer to smarter people about what's appropriate behavior. If you don't care whether what you say hurts others, you need do nothing, need defer to no one any time, ever.

What he's really doing is letting himself get censored by hecklers.

No.

If you don't care about hurting other people, do whatever you want.

If you do care about hurting other people, do your best but recognize the limits of your knowledge--and where your knowledge is insufficient, defer to other, smarter people.

But again, if you don't care about hurting others, do what you want.

You don't have to share his goals in life. You can have your own. It's simple, and it's not censorship.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#82

Post by endominus »

icebraining wrote: post #76
macrael wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read the first article I linked. It's written by an employment lawyer! "Hostile work environment" is not a mantra, it has a legal definition that our justice system has been workshopping for decades. Please consider that this is actually a complicated area that many smart people have been arguing about and refining for years and years. The famous "fire in a theatre" example shows that there are limits to free…

The famous "fire in a theatre" example was invented to justify censoring the distribution of flyers opposing the draft.

Additionally, it was later judged as unconstitutional.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#83

Post by loup-vaillant »

tristram_shandy wrote: post #14

The difference, of course, between Galileo and Kolmogorov is that people are aware of Galileo. Acquiescing keeps intellectuals comfortable, but that's about all you can say for it. There's been a few of these articles linked on HN recently, including Paul Graham's original http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html , with a more or less identical thesis (be quiet) that camouflages real message: that the author is signalling…

Which heresy though? I'm not sure I can link either article to any particular issue.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#84

Post by minipci1321 »

I think in his intrepretation of the Kolmogorov's life, Aaronson might be totally missing the evolution of views of someone born in 1903 in Russia and having lived through what followed. It is not like Kolmogorov was parachuted overnight from some free country into the oppressive regime.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#85

Post by pjc50 »

benchaney wrote: post #74
AndrewOMartin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A problem with this kind of analysis of the situation is that everyone thinks they're in the "subtle and qualified" camp.

It should be obvious that anyone arguing against having a rational discussion is wrong about being in that camp.

Not all subjects are amenable to "rational discussion", since it's inherently a restricted format which has implicit rules about what does and does not count as "rational". It also tends to presume its own weightlessness. Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#86

Post by macrael »

icebraining wrote: post #76
macrael wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read the first article I linked. It's written by an employment lawyer! "Hostile work environment" is not a mantra, it has a legal definition that our justice system has been workshopping for decades. Please consider that this is actually a complicated area that many smart people have been arguing about and refining for years and years. The famous "fire in a theatre" example shows that there are limits to free…

The famous "fire in a theatre" example was invented to justify censoring the distribution of flyers opposing the draft.

Just so: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

I'll try and avoid "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech" in the future. :0

I really think it's worth reading the employment lawyer piece I linked, it's good to get the actual legal perspective on this whole situation.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#87

Post by znfi »

macrael wrote: post #34

Tell me, truly, is this a view held by many here? That, as the church denounced Galileo's observation that we turn around the sun as heretical, so too our modern PC culture suppresses legitimate inquiry into wether gender is a determinant of programming aptitude? This is a comparison worth drawing? Galileo was a scientist. He published papers, books, treatises. He devoted his life to the pursuit of the truth, found a…

If I understand things correctly the argument by feminists etc is something along the lines of "there are no differences between men and women, and thus any difference in outcome must be due to discrimination".

Firstly, even if there was only this claim and accusation, one might want to defend oneself against it. Especially since this is an almost universally agreed upon "truth" in the western world.

Secondly, motivated by this (perceived) discrimination of women, we as a society have allowed various forms of discrimination of men intended to offset the discrimination of women. This gives an even stronger reason to contest this "truth" if one feels that it is in fact not true.

So what kind of defence is someone who does not agree with the above "truth" allowed? Like how insanely watered down should the defence be in order that one does not "accusing [ones] colleagues of having inferior genes"?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#88

Post by pjc50 »

habitue wrote: post #33

Let's say this is about the Google memo. And let's say, for the sake of argument, you're a person who thinks Damore had some good points and some bad points but you think the hysterically censorious response to him was way over the line. But you don't want to become a pariah yourself, so you stay quiet about it. The argument Damore was making was fiddly, kind of subtle and takes a long time to explain, it's not worth…

Damore is himself deeply buried in identity politics, as can be determined by his use of the codeword "Marxist intellectuals" in one of his footnotes.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#90

Post by jules »

icebraining wrote: post #66
habitue wrote: post #33

Let's say this is about the Google memo. And let's say, for the sake of argument, you're a person who thinks Damore had some good points and some bad points but you think the hysterically censorious response to him was way over the line. But you don't want to become a pariah yourself, so you stay quiet about it. The argument Damore was making was fiddly, kind of subtle and takes a long time to explain, it's not worth…

Counterpoint: even if you want to defend a "middle" position, that doesn't mean every argument roughly in that area is worthy defending. I didn't read the memo, so I have no opinion its merits on their own, but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending, because it clearly wasn't written in a way that could ever have a hope of convincing anyone not already on the fence.

"I don't know what the theory of evolution says, but considering the response it gets, I'd say it's not worth defending"
Post reply on HN