What, you mean we aren't constantly saying "scientists know better, people should listen to them", "only science can give any measure of certainty in knowledge, and Bayesian rationality is the fastest and most reliable way to find the right hypotheses to test", "the Machine (the FGAI specifically) will make everything better or at least more interesting", "scientists who are religious Outside The Laboratory are Doing It Wrong and ought to be taken as seriously as if they professed belief in Santa Claus"...

... I notice I might have confused Less Wrong's general philosphy with that of Eliezer Yudkowsky specifically (the above points are caricatures and oversimplifications of stuff he actually said). That's just not true. I've noticed most people over here aren't nearly as caustic as him.

scientists know better, people should listen to them

Conditionally true, but not always true, and so can become both wrong and annoying when used fully generally as in the video.

only science can give any measure of certainty in knowledge, and Bayesian rationality is the fastest and most reliable way to find the right hypotheses to test

Not quite the LW position. Knowledge comes from evidence, science finds publicly verifiable knowledge.

the Machine (the FGAI specifically) will make everything better or at least more interesting

There is no "th... (read more)

Beware The Believer, or a study in depth of recursion

by Raw_Power 1 min read30th Jul 201118 comments

3


I submit to the good people of Less Wrong this wonderful video. Is it a parody of scientifism? A parody of creationist parodies of scientifism? How deep does the recursion go? (those who already know, don't spoil the fun for the rest!).