...I don't get it. I looked it up, and still don't get it.
Explain please?
EDIT: I'm a massive idiot for not getting it. Dammit. I'm only leaving this here because it would be dishonest to delete it. This one goes in the "for when I'm feeling arrogant" folder.
I think he's prodding you because he thinks it's overwrought. At least that was how I interpret it.
Can you put it in the discussion section? It's just as easy to link to there, and considerably less likely to distract people who don't know you or disagree with you.
I definitely feel that this post would be more appropriate for the discussion section.
Also, keep in mind that the majority of people, at least in the US, absolutely believe that you have the right to be wrong and would probably consider "But, you're only entitled to your own opinion to the extent that you're allowed to be wrong about something." to be ludicrous or trivially answered with "So, you're totally entitled to it, then?"
I'm not sure why this is a top level post. Are we supposed to critique this? Are we supposed to come up with our own version? What are we supposed to take away from this?
I'm just leaving it here to link to people if I need to, as I expect to. I'm allowed to do that, right?
Also, it does have some relevance to the morals of Less Wrong. I'll edit it with a foreword to make it clearer.
I'm just leaving it here to link to people if I need to, as I expect to. I'm allowed to do that, right?
Um, I guess technically you're allowed to. I take that to mean you aren't even particularly concerned with it being useful to the LW community though, so I wouldn't be surprised if people down-vote it a lot (and every vote on in the main section counts as +/- 10 karma points so you'll lose some of your privileges pretty quick and it will take a while to get them back).
Personally I would suggest you delete this and put it in the discussion section instead, possibly focusing on making it open to suggestions so that it can become more useful to other people in the community. Then you might do a top level post if it turns out.
Wait, I can't edit it, because I'm below the 20 points threshold required. Hrmm. Off to think of something intelligent to say elsewhere.
Edit: Fixed, given up, deleted. This belonged elsewhere.
Out of curiousity, who all has edit access? I'd assumed Eliezer was the only admin, and could merely delete posts.
Eliezer, Robin Hanson, and matt of Tricycle (and maybe I'm forgetting someone) are Editors with a capital E and you can see this on their user pages under their names. They are omnipotent (although some exertions of this omnipotence are pending software upgrades). Me, Louie, and Vladimir Nesov are invisible, small-e editors. We have the powers of mods, plus we can edit other people's top-level posts; the edits we make in this way are all recorded. Moderators are these folks, and can see and "ignore" reports on comments, and ban comments and posts (but not edit them) (but not users).
It's interesting - but it's definitely a personal post ie it's about you personally, rather than being about something that the group, as a whole, might be interested in. That means that by posting this, you're kinda using the site for your own personal reasons, rather than something to be shared with the group that actually uses this site.
For that reason, I would have put it on your own, personal website or blog instead... and I guess that's been echoed by the others here that have voted this post down.
So, I'm glad you've removed it - not because it isn't interesting, or most likely useful (to you)... just not something that goes here. :)
It's interesting - but it's definitely a personal post ie it's about you personally, rather than being about something that the group, as a whole, might be interested in. That means that by posting this, you're kinda using the site for your own personal reasons, rather than something to be shared with the group that actually uses this site.
For that reason, I would have put it on your own, personal website or blog instead... and I guess that's been echoed by the others here that have voted this post down.
So, I'm glad you've removed it - not because it isn't interesting, or most likely useful (to you)... just not something that goes here. :)
EDIT: I put this here so that it can be easily on the Internet so I can link people to it. When I link it to people, they'll be here on Less Wrong. The good it does to people who are already here, I don't really know. I feel that that makes it appropriate for a top-level post here. If you don't think so, comment, as I'm relatively new here. If three people downvote I'll remove it and put in somewhere else.
To Whom I May Have Concerned:
I write this to explain myself to someone I have just disagreed and argued with. I always feel I need to say the same things after a disagreement, so I thought I'd automate it by writing it down once, and just providing people with a link.
So we disagreed on something. Chances are, I upset or offended you. To start with, I apologize for that. I never want to upset or offend someone, and only rarely do I have to. So, I probably messed up there. Not only is offending and upsetting people a wrong thing to do, but it's also incredibly counterproductive. As soon as someone is offended, their mind closes. Arguments become like soldiers, to be fought. Good solutions are missed. Also, as a result of that, you probably like and trust me less, which is unhelpful for my goals. So I probably screwed that up. I'm sorry. I have this arrogant habit of belittling and making fun of people's beliefs when I'm pretty sure they're wrong, but can't quite explain to them why (for instance arguing about theology with people who don't understand intelligence, or arguing politics with people who don't know microeconomics). So I'm sorry for that.
Now, I need to explain some of the frequent causes of misunderstanding which I get with people. To start with, I need to clarify what I mean by truth, opinions, and such things. The first one is the difference between a fact and a belief. A belief is what you think is true. A fact is true. I can't provide an example of the distinction for myself, as Wittgenstein pointed out. But, for instance, saying "I believe that I am male" gives the same information as "I am male."
Introduction to my views on truth
I believe in philosophical realism. This means that I think two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Iron either floats on water or it doesn't. I was born in Australia or I wasn't. So if two people disagree, at least one of them is wrong.
(However, sometimes the disagreement isn't a real disagreement, just people meaning different things with their words. If that was the problem, I would have told you at the time. So, assume it was a real disagreement.)
Now, there's this idea in society that some statements are facts, and some are opinions. For example, people think that "Japan's capital city is Tokyo" is a fact, while "Japan's justice system is immoral" to be opinions. I don't believe there is any qualitative difference between these statements. I believe both.
There are some differences. "Japan's capital city is Tokyo" is a lot more likely to be considered a fact, for a few reasons.