Meet in front of the Davenport Branch of the Toronto Public Library (1246 Shaw St) at 1:50 pm. From there we'll walk to the actual meetup location at a private residence. Try not to be late! If you have been around before, feel free to go directly to the private residence at 2pm.
When someone you respect disagrees with you, how much should your opinion be moved by that? How often should we defer to the broader consensus or higher-order evidence of experts, against our own strongly held opinions? When does it make sense to be more epistemically modest, and when does it make sense to be more daring in our beliefs?
(we will definitely not get through all of this lol)
How epistemically modest do you tend to be? Which fields or topics are you the least modest in? What makes you less modest in those fields or topics?
Hanson describes one case where you should feel freer to disagree: you know a topic nearly as well as anyone in the world, but have no credentials, and insight there doesn’t quickly turn into money or status. Even then, he says to respect base rates, test your views fast, and not expect anyone to listen. Is there a topic like that for you? What does testing your view “as fast and strongly as possible” look like there?
What are some features you expect to see in fields where the expert consensus is high quality? Low quality? Non-existent?
What are some strategies you have for discerning when you should update towards expert consensus and when you should ignore it?
Many of the arguments for epistemic modesty take an outside view - if an undergraduate student comes to you and said they've critically thought about a topic and then came to conclusion X, or if your uncle tells you that they found a way to beat the market, you tend to be very skeptical of their findings. How much does this outside view update you on your own level of epistemic humility?
Social desirability bias is Hanson’s main license for disagreeing with consensus. He also warns about people drawn to socially undesirable views because they like seeing themselves as freethinkers. In rationalist circles, contrarianism is sometimes the socially rewarded move. What beliefs are unusually socially desirable to hold in these communities?
Do you know of other cultures or subcultures where disagreement is done differently? What does it look like elsewhere? In what ways are those cultures healthier, and unhealthier?
Scott is very glad that some people never develop epistemic learned helplessness, even though most people who don't are more likely to become cranks. Do you think we have a good sized percentage of daring people in our society? Should we have more, or less? What might happen if we have more, or less?
[Generic invitation to discourse about the interaction in Against Modesty's Bailey]
Meet in front of the Davenport Branch of the Toronto Public Library (1246 Shaw St) at 1:50 pm. From there we'll walk to the actual meetup location at a private residence. Try not to be late! If you have been around before, feel free to go directly to the private residence at 2pm.
When someone you respect disagrees with you, how much should your opinion be moved by that? How often should we defer to the broader consensus or higher-order evidence of experts, against our own strongly held opinions? When does it make sense to be more epistemically modest, and when does it make sense to be more daring in our beliefs?
Come to this meetup to help us hash this out. If we are properly bayesian, we will all certainly converge to the same answer.
Readings
Please read these before attending. The first one is long, the rest are short.
Optional reading: Please read as many of these as you like.
Discussion questions
(we will definitely not get through all of this lol)
Posted on: