> Having hanged around LessWrong for quite some time, I'm pretty sure this point is false. How am I to show it however? Dump the whole site to show the absence of such purges?
To refute the above statement, only one statement to the contrary would be a good start - it would provide me with enough evidence to consider your side of the story and think that perhaps the critique isn't completely fair.
> Quite a lot has been said there, we're bound to find unacceptable behaviour somewhere.
This can be said for any popular community. Does that mean we should not critique them? Or that some how invalidate any criticism against them? No.
The thing you're missing here is not the number of counter-examples, but a general cultural trend. HN, for example, is a tech oriented community, but political discussion isn't anathema here. I can show this by reading a few posts and noticing how people are comfortable discussing differentiating political opinions here. It's not perfect argument, but it's a good start, and goes a long way towards making me appreciate the environment.
Here, there is an important role played by so called "leaders" in community and how tolerant they are as well, by the way. And I know for a fact that Elizer isn't one of them. Then again, what else do you expect from a guy who tries to edit his own Wikipedia page.
> If the criticism can indeed apply to all groups, then it effectively applies to none, because it doesn't provide a way to discriminate different groups.
I'd happily accept this if you specifically mention which criticism in the parent link can be applied to all. The critique is very, very specific. It starts by defining what Bayes Theorem is, what LW and their ilk think about it, more of their pseudo-intellectual talk, the cult of personality, the AI apocalypse doomsday scenarios, etc etc.
I don't like the introduction, mostly because I believe what he ridicules to a degree (AI is an existential risk, I have enjoyed HPMOR more than Rowling's work, and I'm not quite sure that making lots of money and give it away is worse than working directly for whatever cause we want to support).
Bayesian grace
Bayes T-shirt means certain asshole. Well at least it made me smile.
I agree that Bayes' theorem is not that notable. The product rule, more fundamental, is more representative of the laws of probability (the actual basis for bayesianism).
Of course, the "formula for the perfect brain" is computationally intractable…
The association between Bayesianism and Neo-Liberalism looks like an ad-hominem attack —doesn't apply to me, at least.
I can't comment on this "Bayesian revolution". But I'm already suspicious of the whole essay at this point, and cannot trust this paragraph.
Amazing Bayes
What the author fails to acknowledge here is that to the extent it can apply, Probability theory is that amazing. There are, like proofs of it working very broadly, and it relies on very few axioms. (Jayne's work in Probability Theory: the Logic of Science leaves little doubt about that.)
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Often very weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Whoever believe otherwise doesn't understand probability theory. (Maybe the author conflated "evidence" and "proof", or "evidence" and "strong evidence"?)
The correct application of probability theory is computationally intractable in many cases. I can see how it would be unworkable for historians, who have to juggle with many many kinds of evidence. Not having read Richard Carrier however, I'm not sure this objection is not yet another strawman.
Accusing Bayesianism to be responsible for confirmation bias is ridiculous however. Confirmation bias does not follow probability theory. It often follows an incorrect application of it however.
Less Wrong
Okay, I'm out. The insults are too blunt, came too soon, without any justification so far. SIAI (now MIRI) as a doomsday cult is a strawman. As for LessWrong, Eliezer specifically warned about the dangers of using rationalist's tools for rhetoric purposes —how your own biases can increase when you know about biases.
I'm not taking the effort required to search for and debunk any justification that might come later. He just used up my patience.
> Having hanged around LessWrong for quite some time, I'm pretty sure this point is false. How am I to show it however? Dump the whole site to show the absence of such purges?
To refute the above statement, only one statement to the contrary would be a good start - it would provide me with enough evidence to consider your side of the story and think that perhaps the critique isn't completely fair.
> Quite a lot has been said there, we're bound to find unacceptable behaviour somewhere.
This can be said for any popular community. Does that mean we should not critique them? Or that some how invalidate any criticism against them? No.
The thing you're missing here is not the number of counter-examples, but a general cultural trend. HN, for example, is a tech oriented community, but political discussion isn't anathema here. I can show this by reading a few posts and noticing how people are comfortable discussing differentiating political opinions here. It's not perfect argument, but it's a good start, and goes a long way towards making me appreciate the environment.
Here, there is an important role played by so called "leaders" in community and how tolerant they are as well, by the way. And I know for a fact that Elizer isn't one of them. Then again, what else do you expect from a guy who tries to edit his own Wikipedia page.
> If the criticism can indeed apply to all groups, then it effectively applies to none, because it doesn't provide a way to discriminate different groups.
I'd happily accept this if you specifically mention which criticism in the parent link can be applied to all. The critique is very, very specific. It starts by defining what Bayes Theorem is, what LW and their ilk think about it, more of their pseudo-intellectual talk, the cult of personality, the AI apocalypse doomsday scenarios, etc etc.