Posts

Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions

Comments

So you mean that you have a different thought in a given context than you have previously?

But of course, much else will have necessarily changed from previously. There are so many variables, and so much reason to suspect bias/placebo/any number of other self-deceptive influences. I just don't think you can identify the cause as confidently as you claim (although I'll concede some to your last sentence- that the more often this happens, the more justifiably you can attribute it to the intervention in question).

And as for the burden of proof- you not only made a claim, you used the word 'definitely'. Why wouldn't you have to support that claim? I feel like the whole concept of 'burden of proof' has become very counter-productive in internet discourse. Time spent arguing about who has the burden of proof would be much better spent on making arguments for our respective positions.

Thank you! How do I browse content tags in general?

How do I find more 'fact posts'? That's probably my favourite type of content here, and I clicked on the hyperlink hoping that it was a content tag and I could spend a few hours gorging!

My immediate objection is that I don't seem to catch myself any less over time- I catch myself plenty, I just don't do anything about it.

Just wanted to say I signed up for a trial on the strength of this pitch, so well done! It sounds like something that could be really useful for me.

I don't really expect people to be combative at all in this context, but I'll happily take you at your word and retract the comment.

No.

Well this isn't helpful! I was genuinely trying to understand what the point of the quoted statement is. In the context, it seemed like that was the most reasonable interpretation. If it isn't, then it'd be more productive to explain what you did mean.

I'm sorry that you feel misrepresented. For me, continuing to argue (in response to criticism or otherwise) that there is something wrong with STMT not taking the bet, and that their stated reason is insufficient, and making what read to me like implicit accusations of dishonesty, seems a lot like 'making combative noise'. It's quite an imprecise charge, though, and perhaps unhelpful of me to make.

Anyway, I certainly don't want to be making combative noise, and policing your tone isn't really adding anything to the (important) object-level discussion, so I'll beat a retreat.

Letting someone choose the criteria to a proposed bet maximizes the chances that they can come up with something fair.

True, but it's unclear to me how this relates to the parent. Is your implicit argument that because of this, refusing to take the bet does amount to a failure to stand by their beliefs? Because giving someone the fairest possible framework for a bet doesn't mean there can be no other objection to taking it, nor imply anything about their argument if they choose not to.

STMT's reason for doing so was very reasonable. We don't want them to want it to be true (any more than is inevitable). In fact, I would go so far as to argue that bets on predictions about the world should never involve any party actively investigating those claims, and you should be suspicious of any research from someone who is conflicted in this way.

And while you claim that their "failure" to bet you didn't play much of a role in anyone's argument, you sure do seem to be making a lot of fairly combative noise about it. Betting on predictions is can be a useful collaborative tool, but in this case it feels more like a weapon-and a deterrent to speculative investigation.

He's also significantly more combative in that thread than I would expect in the context, which leads me to wonder whether there's more going on there.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
Load More