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

141–150 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#141

Post by danarmak »

icebraining wrote: post #123
danarmak wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what Darwin's Descent of Man says, but considering the immediate reaction, I'd say it's not worth defending.

It probably wasn't. Better to write and defending texts that can actually change the public position until the Descent of Man becomes not quite as unpalatable, and therefore eventually worth defending. I'm prefer effectiveness over martyrdom.

How do you judge whether Descent of Man is a text that can change the public position, or too radical and not worth defending? If you only defend things that don't get a negative reaction, and anything contrary to the current dogma gets a negative reaction, you'll likely never get anywhere.

Also, the strength of the reaction against a non-conformist text is not really strongly correlated with the degree to which it's non-conformist. Dogmatics police small deviations precisely because they don't want an incremental strategy to work.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#142

Post by benchaney »

vanderZwan wrote: post #129
benchaney wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has a long history of using the "rational discussion" argument to shut rational people up: The chancelor in the article you cited is arguing in favor of censorship. I am arguing against it. I don't understand why you think there are similarities, unless you are comparing us because we both use the word rational. > Also, any sentence with "it should be obvious" raises a red flag with me - usually it is uttere…

You're responding to a comment that almost literally says "opposing sides of any discussion always consider themselves the rational half" and you don't see the connection? You imply that it is obvious to decide who is rational or irrational . It is not - everyone is biased to be blind to their own irrationality. People are not as rational as they think, and the more someone is in denial of having an irrational side t…

First off, when you quote something, please actually quote it, or at least be specific. I had a quite a time trying to figure what "a comment" and "Your statement" were referring to.

> You imply it is obvious to decide who is rational or irrational. It is not - everyone is biased to be blind to their own irrationality.

Yes, that is why having a discussion is important. So that people can be exposed to arguments that challenge their irrationality. It is only obvious that one side is being irrational when they refuse to have a discussion (and by extension refuse to consider the possibility that they are wrong).

> Your statement is tautological, akin to "obviously the side who is wrong is wrong."

And yet some people are still against having the discussion. If you believe that my post is a tautology, then it follows logically that anyone who disagrees with it is trivially wrong.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#143

Post by TeMPOraL »

mseebach wrote: post #31

I don't know anything about Kolmogorov, so I can't evaluate the assumption that he obviously saw through the lies and was horrified by the brutality - but I will note that a great number of prominent intellectuals, who were in absolutely no private danger from the soviet regime whatever they'd believe and say, and who definitely had access to information about the brutality, who still chose to support and defend the…

Related, I was shocked to learn just how popular Soviet ideology was with western intellectuals in early- and mid-XX century, even though there was already plenty of evidence available about how huge a disaster it was.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles-...

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#144

Post by tpeo »

nl wrote: post #107
benchaney wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of race-based slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of child-slavery? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of childhood labor? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of racial discrimination? Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of the benefits of gende…

This is an equivocation. There's such a thing as an is/ought distinction. The fact that there might be some rational description of morally abhorrent behavior doesn't lead to the conclusion that that behavior is acceptable. Understanding doesn't mean accepting. Darwinism, for instance, doesn't imply Social Darwinism. Neither do theories of criminal behavior attempt to legitimize crime.

And if anything, anyone who's appalled by these things should actually be interested in studying the conditions under which these things might happen, or under which they might be beneficial, so as to insure that these conditions are never met.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#145

Post by jack_pp »

myth_drannon wrote: post #98

I'm surprised no one is mentioning Jordan Peterson and the attacks on him. He is quite successful in defending himself speaking his truths.

The already huge and rising support he's getting on patreon proves that enough people want to rebell. I believe he is doing tremendous work

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#146

Post by benchaney »

vanderZwan wrote: post #140
benchaney wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". I don't see how this follows. Are you suggesting that some topics can only be discussed if the discussion includes a non-sequitur. > Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful. On the balance it seems…

No, the claim is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion. Most of this discussion outrage is based on people on all sides not realising they start from different, inherently subjective premises, and then believe they can build a universally true objective claim on that card house. EDIT: This is why I believe people in STEM fields would really benefit from spending some ti…

> No, the suggestion is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion.

This is not a prerequisite of all discussions.

> Most of this discussion outrage is based on people on all sides not realising they start from different, inherently subjective premises, and then believe they can build a universally true objective claim on that card house.

This is easy to discover and correct for if both parties approach the discussion without being disingenuous. Building a universally true objective claim is not the only possible end goal of discussion.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#147

Post by lmm »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #118
SidiousL wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think using "deeply buried in identity politics" is overstating facts. And I'm sure you can find many people in academia and otherwise who will clearly identify as Marxists and who advance the points of view that he was against. If being against a certain current of thought makes you "deeply buried in identity politics", then count me in.

I've now seen several defences of this, and it confuses me. The whole "Marxist Intellectuals are destroying our society from the inside by promoting the gay lifestyle" thing only makes sense in terms of being a dog-whistle for people who don't like jews or gays or liberals generally. It doesn't make any sense to me if I take it literally. How is Peter Thiel or Tim Cook being able to be open about their sexuality bad…

I think it's meant to evoke Marxism in terms of being dogmatic and not tolerating dissent, rather than actually anti-capitalism? Either way it's an extremely poor choice of term.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#148

Post by benchaney »

Certhas wrote: post #136
benchaney wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not obviously. Or at least not if we're talking about having public rational discussions about it. The validity and correct interpretation of evidence is extremely hard for a lay audience to judge. Putting a climate scientist and a climate science denier on a podium to have a rational discussion is not likely to lead the audience to a more rational decision. Ditto for creationists. Does this concrete case fall into t…

There is a difference between not wanting to participate in a discussion because you believe it to be unfruitful/counterproductive, and trying to actively shut down other peoples discussions. I was criticizing people who do the latter. Does that address your issue with my assertion?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#149

Post by backpropaganda »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #83
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.

People are assuming Aaronson is talking about Damore's note about diversity practices at Google.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#150

Post by akvadrako »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #118
SidiousL wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think using "deeply buried in identity politics" is overstating facts. And I'm sure you can find many people in academia and otherwise who will clearly identify as Marxists and who advance the points of view that he was against. If being against a certain current of thought makes you "deeply buried in identity politics", then count me in.

I've now seen several defences of this, and it confuses me. The whole "Marxist Intellectuals are destroying our society from the inside by promoting the gay lifestyle" thing only makes sense in terms of being a dog-whistle for people who don't like jews or gays or liberals generally. It doesn't make any sense to me if I take it literally. How is Peter Thiel or Tim Cook being able to be open about their sexuality bad…

Your comment is dishonest. That isn't a quote from the memo. It is:

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

I can find some meaning in his footnote which isn't anything like a dog-whistle. He is saying that the group of people fighting for a economically left system changed tactics. Instead of arguing about class, they are coopting gender and race to try to change society. I'm not sure I buy it, but it's reasonable to suggest.

Post reply on HN