All of Ouroborus's Comments + Replies

Those are excellent points. Maybe it doesn't apply to the community as a whole, but I still think there are a greater proportion of people with the archetypal skeptical mindset in the LW community than the general population. But in any case, my aim was to discuss the limits of skepticism; how widespread it is on LW is a side point.

I'm always skeptical of the official narratives of what people in a movement believe (yes I know, ironic to write this in a thread about post-skepticism)

4ChristianKl4y
If you look at big issues for this community like dealing with Xrisk where low probabilities are involved the standard skeptic response is to see the evidence for the Xrisks not being up to the standards of evidence. The sequences make arguments about taking positions on topics like cryonics or the Many World Hypothesis that don't fall in line with those of the skeptic community but are taking based on different epistemics. You had people in the skeptic community nominating Elon Musk for the Luddite Award. It makes a lot of sense from the perspective of the skeptic community to do that and at the same time it's very hard from a LessWrong perspective to see that nomination making sense.

Would be interesting to know how long they'd have to produce ~1,000,000,000 doses.

2ChristianKl4y
They said that currently they can produce 10,000,000 per campaign and with the new facility they can produce 1,000,000,000 per campaign in the press call. Unfortunately, they didn't specify how long a campaign is going to last. Last year they got some funds to develop a portable facility (The RNA Printer) that can produce 1,000,000 doses in two weeks.

Could you clarify the distinction between techne and gnosis? Is it something like playing around with a hammer and seeing how it works?

2Gordon Seidoh Worley4y
It's not a very firm distinction, but techne is knowledge from doing, so I would consider playing with a hammer a way to develop techne. It certainly overlaps with the concept of gnosis, which is a bit more general and includes knowledge from direct experience that doesn't involve "doing", like the kind of knowledge you gain from observing. But the act of observing is a kind of thing you do, so as you see it's fuzzy, but generally I think of techne as that which involves your body moving.

I finally feel I understand this post. I also feel I understand why it was hard for me to understand originally.

The car analogy is being used to explain both looking and why looking is difficult to explain. This encourages trying to understand both at the same time, when it'd be simpler to focus on the later first.

Beyond that, as a story, it is hard to completely understand without a more realistic example to clarify. Unfortuantely, the only real example is the skill of Looking is anything but clear. So to understand Looking you have to understand why explaining Looking is Hard which is explained with the Car Example which is only completely clear once you understand Looking.

I'm finding this Spreadsheet useful. Like it's one thing to see current numbers, but it's also useful to see the numbers for each country and a graph.