Comment by kubb
5 days ago
This unfortunately doesn’t help if it isn’t paired with withholding judgement in the face of insufficient evidence, but rationalists don’t do that. They just pick a model they like and continue, and the burden of scrutinizing that model is on others.
Making rational decisions means picking the most responsible option given imperfect information. It doesn't mean delaying decisions until you have perfect information because that point never comes.
Sufficient information, not perfect information.
What's sufficient information is also a huge part of the debate. See: should we start worrying about AI safety or not yet?
Opinions based on insufficient information help immensely in determining whether we have sufficient information, and also raise awareness of important topics that we need more information on. These blog posts serve a very important role in the information exchange ecosystem and the whole world would be worse off if all these people held off until they're 99% certain. Nobody would be talking about climate change, about economy, about quantum gravity, about ancient civilizations, about prehistoric animal species, etc. etc. and so on.
1 reply →
Using the easy to defend claim (acting without perfect information is necessary) to defend a much broader one (my judgement is rational and justified based on the information I have) is a classical motte and bailey fallacy.
People in the rationalist community don’t see it, because ironically they’re not rational enough. But they use the language and essay format to make it seem like they are.
1 reply →
If your pick of the option is based on emotion or aesthetics, the decision isn’t rational. Presenting is as such is misleading and dishonest.