If your ideas can stand on their own merit, you can defend them against criticism without resorting down to saying things like "oh it's a pseudo criticism and cherry picking facts". You're the one calling it bullshit. You even admit you wouldn't want to refute specific accusations.
And then go on to call it "malicious bullshit".
So, basically what you're saying is that we shouldn't listen to this criticism (which provides very valid points btw) but listen to you, when all you've done is attack the critique in a classic ad-hominem fallacy.
Yes, I see the problem you mention. All I offer is, as a person who spent some time hanging around that group but not exactly an insider, my honest assessment: this criticism is very unfair, very hurtful, and mostly bullshit. You don't have to believe me - but you now have a second data point for your consideration.
I did engage with some points in comments below though, to show examples of this cherry-picking facts, ripping them out of context and twisting them into supporting something completely untrue.
But my general point is that this kind of criticism is impossible to defend against. To prove that it's mostly bullshit would take me literally writing a book - in which I would surely make mistakes, that then could be used to discredit it entirely in a single article. This is the asymmetry of dishonest arguing - you can get your results with 1/100 the effort if you're willing to deceive your reader.
When people read a powerful criticism "debunking" things about a group they vaguely know, the default for most is to agree with the criticism. For some reason it's natural to humans. All I want now is to make people stop for at least a moment, consider that the article may be unfair, and to not make judgments before double-checking the claims.
Maybe I could've written it in a more dispassionate way. It's hard for me - not because I like LW, but because I've been in other groups targeted by this kind of criticism, spent way too much time trying to defend the group from it, and I know the crushing feeling that no matter what the truth is, it'll be twisted and bent until it can be used as a weapon against you.
> this criticism is very unfair, very hurtful, and mostly bullshit. You don't have to believe me - but you now have a second data point for your consideration.
No I do not. All you've provided me is a point of view without anything resembling rational reasoning. I believe that trains can fly. You don't have to believe me, but now you have another data point for your consideration.
> this kind of criticism is impossible to defend against.
See my initial statement. All you have to do is point flaws in the above link.
> To prove that it's mostly bullshit would take me literally writing a book - in which I would surely make mistakes,
If you're not confident in your ability to assess and refute an argument, then why bother making it?
> that then could be used to discredit it entirely in a single article.
Nobody is saying the article above is perfectly written, or that the critique is 100% on point, but that does not mean the broad point he makes has no merit. Same would be true for the hypothetical book you write.
> When people read a powerful criticism "debunking" things about a group they vaguely know, the default for most is to agree with the criticism. For some reason it's natural to humans.
Do you have any basis on which you're making that claim? No, because if you did, you'd provide that.
> All I want now is to make people stop for at least a moment, consider that the article may be unfair, and to not make judgments before double-checking the claims.
But WHY? WHY? You've, objectively, given me ZERO reason besides "it's malicious and people are biased when reading debunking articles". You've clearly refused to engage in the content. You haven't even quoted a single line and proved that it's false. Whereas the article in question is an in-depth exploration of the community of people, their beliefs, the personalities involved, what they believe, their education background and many more things. What have you done? Nada.
I can go on and tear down your whole reply, but I'll stop here.I come off with the impression that you're taking this personally and therefore, as a natural response, you're defending it, which is fine. I'm not trying to be a dick, but perhaps you should work on your argumentation and logic skills before trying to defend or take any side.
You're reading me very uncharitably. I believe that debunking this article properly, point-by-point and with overwhelming evidence, will take stupidly big amounts of time and is almost an impossible task - since no matter what I say, people with the same approach as the author can find something else to twist into criticism. On the other hand, Googling quotes he uses and checking them with source material is easy and provides ample proof that the article is dishonest. It's something a reader can do, and I want to clearly state that in this case, they absolutely should.
RodericDay asked about three concrete examples taken from the article; each of them is a perfect example how utterly nonsense this article is. I provided relevant source material and explained the real meaning of quotes Bond uses when taken in context of said source material. So did other HNers. Check out the responses in the parallel subthreads. I could do it for every one of his sentences but frankly, I feel it's a waste of time. I think I've proven enough that this is not an honest criticism, and fact-checking the rest of that article shall be the task for the reader, who is now properly warned.
Let's try: as far as I know, this bit: Under this rallying cry, Lesswrong insiders attempt to purge discussions of any political opinions they disagree with.
Having hanged around LessWrong for quite some time, I'm pretty sure this point is false. How am I to show it however? Dump the whole site to show the absence of such purges? And how the inevitable counter-example? Quite a lot has been said there, we're bound to find unacceptable behaviour somewhere. All I can provide is a testimony. In other word, anecdotal evidence, which we all know to be weak.
There's another way to say "pseudo criticism and cherry picking facts". It's the fully general counter-argument. If the criticism can indeed apply to all groups, then it effectively applies to none, because it doesn't provide a way to discriminate different groups.
> Having hanged around LessWrong for quite some time, I'm pretty sure this point is false. How am I to show it however? Dump the whole site to show the absence of such purges?
To refute the above statement, only one statement to the contrary would be a good start - it would provide me with enough evidence to consider your side of the story and think that perhaps the critique isn't completely fair.
> Quite a lot has been said there, we're bound to find unacceptable behaviour somewhere.
This can be said for any popular community. Does that mean we should not critique them? Or that some how invalidate any criticism against them? No.
The thing you're missing here is not the number of counter-examples, but a general cultural trend. HN, for example, is a tech oriented community, but political discussion isn't anathema here. I can show this by reading a few posts and noticing how people are comfortable discussing differentiating political opinions here. It's not perfect argument, but it's a good start, and goes a long way towards making me appreciate the environment.
Here, there is an important role played by so called "leaders" in community and how tolerant they are as well, by the way. And I know for a fact that Elizer isn't one of them. Then again, what else do you expect from a guy who tries to edit his own Wikipedia page.
> If the criticism can indeed apply to all groups, then it effectively applies to none, because it doesn't provide a way to discriminate different groups.
I'd happily accept this if you specifically mention which criticism in the parent link can be applied to all. The critique is very, very specific. It starts by defining what Bayes Theorem is, what LW and their ilk think about it, more of their pseudo-intellectual talk, the cult of personality, the AI apocalypse doomsday scenarios, etc etc.
I don't like the introduction, mostly because I believe what he ridicules to a degree (AI is an existential risk, I have enjoyed HPMOR more than Rowling's work, and I'm not quite sure that making lots of money and give it away is worse than working directly for whatever cause we want to support).
Bayesian grace
Bayes T-shirt means certain asshole. Well at least it made me smile.
I agree that Bayes' theorem is not that notable. The product rule, more fundamental, is more representative of the laws of probability (the actual basis for bayesianism).
Of course, the "formula for the perfect brain" is computationally intractable…
The association between Bayesianism and Neo-Liberalism looks like an ad-hominem attack —doesn't apply to me, at least.
I can't comment on this "Bayesian revolution". But I'm already suspicious of the whole essay at this point, and cannot trust this paragraph.
Amazing Bayes
What the author fails to acknowledge here is that to the extent it can apply, Probability theory is that amazing. There are, like proofs of it working very broadly, and it relies on very few axioms. (Jayne's work in Probability Theory: the Logic of Science leaves little doubt about that.)
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Often very weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Whoever believe otherwise doesn't understand probability theory. (Maybe the author conflated "evidence" and "proof", or "evidence" and "strong evidence"?)
The correct application of probability theory is computationally intractable in many cases. I can see how it would be unworkable for historians, who have to juggle with many many kinds of evidence. Not having read Richard Carrier however, I'm not sure this objection is not yet another strawman.
Accusing Bayesianism to be responsible for confirmation bias is ridiculous however. Confirmation bias does not follow probability theory. It often follows an incorrect application of it however.
Less Wrong
Okay, I'm out. The insults are too blunt, came too soon, without any justification so far. SIAI (now MIRI) as a doomsday cult is a strawman. As for LessWrong, Eliezer specifically warned about the dangers of using rationalist's tools for rhetoric purposes —how your own biases can increase when you know about biases.
I'm not taking the effort required to search for and debunk any justification that might come later. He just used up my patience.
And then go on to call it "malicious bullshit".
So, basically what you're saying is that we shouldn't listen to this criticism (which provides very valid points btw) but listen to you, when all you've done is attack the critique in a classic ad-hominem fallacy.
See the problem here?