The asymmetry that @Ben Millwood points to below is important, but it goes further. Imagine a hundred well-intentioned people look into whether there are dragons. They look in different places, make different errors, and there are a lot of things that could be confused for dragons or things dragons could be confused for, so this is a noisy process. Unless the evidence is overwhelming in one direction or another, some will come to believe that there are dragons, while others will believe that there are not.
While humanity is not perfect at uncovering the truth in confusing situations, our approach that best approaches the truth is for people to report back what theyāve found, and have open discussion of the evidence. Perhaps some evidence A finds is very convincing to them, but then B shows how theyāve been misinterpreting it. Except this doesnāt work on taboo topics:
Many sensible people have (what I interpret as) @NickLaingās perspective, and people with that perspective will only participate in the public evidence reconciliation process if they failed to find dragons. I donāt know, for example, whether this is your perspective.
You wrote essentially the opposite (āThose who perceive ādragons on the mapā will often feel their integrity is at stake unless they speak up. Those who didnāt find any will lose interest and wonāt feel their integrity is at stake, so they wonāt speak up.ā) and I agree some people will think this way, but I think this is many fewer people than are willing to publicly argue for generally-accepted-as-good positions but not generally-accepted-as-evil ones.
Many people really do or donāt want dragons to exist, and so will argue for/āagainst them without much real engagement with the evidence.
Good faith participation in a serious debate on the existence of dragons risks your reputation and jeopardizes your ability to contribute in many places.
So I will continue not engaging, publicly or privately, with evidence or arguments on whether there are dragons.
Imagine a hundred well-intentioned people look into whether there are dragons. They look in different places, make different errors, and there are a lot of things that could be confused for dragons or things dragons could be confused for, so this is a noisy process. Unless the evidence is overwhelming in one direction or another, some will come to believe that there are dragons, while others will believe that there are not.
While humanity is not perfect at uncovering the truth in confusing situations, our approach that best approaches the truth is for people to report back what theyāve found, and have open discussion of the evidence. Perhaps some evidence A finds is very convincing to them, but then B shows how theyāve been misinterpreting it.
This is a bit discourteous here.
I am not claiming that A is convincing to me in isolation. I am claiming that after a hundred similarly smart people fit different evidence together, thereās so much model uncertainty that Iām conservatively downgrading A from āoverwhelmingly obviousā to āpretty sureā. I am claiming that if we could somehow make a prediction market that would resolve on the actual truth of the matter, I might bet only half my savings on A, just in case I missed something drastic.
Youāre free to dismiss this as overconfidence of course. But this isnāt amateur hour, I understand the implications of what Iām saying and intend my words to be meaningful.
Many sensible people have (what I interpret as) @NickLaingās perspective, and people with that perspective will only participate in the public evidence reconciliation process if they failed to find dragons. I donāt know, for example, whether this is your perspective.
You wrote essentially the oppositeā¦ and I agree some people will think this way, but I think this is many fewer people than are willing to publicly argue for generally-accepted-as-good positions but not generally-accepted-as-evil ones
I think this largely depends on whether a given forum is anonymous or not. In an alternate universe where the dragon scenario was true, I think Iād end up arguing for it anonymously at some point, though likely not on this forum.
I was not particularly tracking my named-ness as a point of evidence, except insofar as it could be used to determine my engagement with EA & rationality and make updates about my epistemics & good faith.
Good faith participation in a serious debate on the existence of dragons risks your reputation and jeopardizes your ability to contribute in many places.
Sure. I understand itās epistemically rude to take debate pot-shots when an opposing team would be so disadvantaged, and thereās a reason to ignore one-sided information. Thereās no obligation to update or engage if this comes across as adversarial.
But I really am approaching this as cooperatively communicating information. I found I had nonzero stress about the perceived possibility of dragons here, and I expect others do as well. I think a principled refusal to look does have nonzero reputational harm. There will be situations where thatās the best we can manage, but thereās also such a thing as a p(dragon) low enough that itās no longer a good strategy. If it is the case that there are obviously no dragons somewhere, itād be a good idea for a high-trust group to have a way to call āall clearā.
So this is my best shot. Hey, anyone reading this? I know this is unilateral and all, but I think weāre good.
The asymmetry that @Ben Millwood points to below is important, but it goes further. Imagine a hundred well-intentioned people look into whether there are dragons. They look in different places, make different errors, and there are a lot of things that could be confused for dragons or things dragons could be confused for, so this is a noisy process. Unless the evidence is overwhelming in one direction or another, some will come to believe that there are dragons, while others will believe that there are not.
While humanity is not perfect at uncovering the truth in confusing situations, our approach that best approaches the truth is for people to report back what theyāve found, and have open discussion of the evidence. Perhaps some evidence A finds is very convincing to them, but then B shows how theyāve been misinterpreting it. Except this doesnāt work on taboo topics:
Many sensible people have (what I interpret as) @NickLaingās perspective, and people with that perspective will only participate in the public evidence reconciliation process if they failed to find dragons. I donāt know, for example, whether this is your perspective.
You wrote essentially the opposite (āThose who perceive ādragons on the mapā will often feel their integrity is at stake unless they speak up. Those who didnāt find any will lose interest and wonāt feel their integrity is at stake, so they wonāt speak up.ā) and I agree some people will think this way, but I think this is many fewer people than are willing to publicly argue for generally-accepted-as-good positions but not generally-accepted-as-evil ones.
Many people really do or donāt want dragons to exist, and so will argue for/āagainst them without much real engagement with the evidence.
Good faith participation in a serious debate on the existence of dragons risks your reputation and jeopardizes your ability to contribute in many places.
So I will continue not engaging, publicly or privately, with evidence or arguments on whether there are dragons.
This is a bit discourteous here.
I am not claiming that A is convincing to me in isolation. I am claiming that after a hundred similarly smart people fit different evidence together, thereās so much model uncertainty that Iām conservatively downgrading A from āoverwhelmingly obviousā to āpretty sureā. I am claiming that if we could somehow make a prediction market that would resolve on the actual truth of the matter, I might bet only half my savings on A, just in case I missed something drastic.
Youāre free to dismiss this as overconfidence of course. But this isnāt amateur hour, I understand the implications of what Iām saying and intend my words to be meaningful.
I think this largely depends on whether a given forum is anonymous or not. In an alternate universe where the dragon scenario was true, I think Iād end up arguing for it anonymously at some point, though likely not on this forum.
I was not particularly tracking my named-ness as a point of evidence, except insofar as it could be used to determine my engagement with EA & rationality and make updates about my epistemics & good faith.
Sure. I understand itās epistemically rude to take debate pot-shots when an opposing team would be so disadvantaged, and thereās a reason to ignore one-sided information. Thereās no obligation to update or engage if this comes across as adversarial.
But I really am approaching this as cooperatively communicating information. I found I had nonzero stress about the perceived possibility of dragons here, and I expect others do as well. I think a principled refusal to look does have nonzero reputational harm. There will be situations where thatās the best we can manage, but thereās also such a thing as a p(dragon) low enough that itās no longer a good strategy. If it is the case that there are obviously no dragons somewhere, itād be a good idea for a high-trust group to have a way to call āall clearā.
So this is my best shot. Hey, anyone reading this? I know this is unilateral and all, but I think weāre good.