The first thought I have is mostly an impression or something that stood out to me: it seems to me like the word choices here sometimes don’t quite reflect the point being made or the full range of views being critiqued, arguably including the strongest competing views.
For example, when talking about heuristics that are supposed to be “robust”, or strategies we can “reliably intervene on”, or whether we can “reliably weigh up” relevant effects, etc, it seems to me that these word choices convey something much stronger than what would necessarily be endorsed by weaker and arguably more defensible types of views that differ from yours.
After all, views different from yours might agree that no heuristics are outright robust and that we can’t reliably weigh up the relevant effects, while nevertheless holding something weaker, like that some heuristics are slightly better than others in expectation, or that we in general can do meaningfully (or even just marginally) better than nothing.
Of course, I get that language is always a bit vague, and I’m sure you meant to include a very broad range of views, including very “weak” ones. But at least in terms of how I read it, the language often seemed to invoke a much stronger and more narrow set of views than necessary.
Thanks Magnus — I’m not sure I understand your objection or which specific language choices in the posts seem too strong, yet.
nevertheless holding something weaker, like that some heuristics are slightly better than others in expectation, or that we in general can do meaningfully (or even just marginally) better than nothing
I should probably have made it more clear that this isn’t an objection, and maybe not even much of a substantive point, but more just a remark on something that stood out to me while reading, namely that the views critiqued often seemed phrased in much stronger terms than what people with competing views would necessarily agree with.
Some of the examples that stood out were those I included in quotes above.
Some of the examples that stood out were those I included in quotes above
I’m still confused, sorry. E.g., “reliably” doesn’t mean “perfectly”, and my hope was that the surrounding context was enough to make clear what I mean. I’m not sure which alternative phrasings you’d recommend (or why you think there’s a risk of misrepresentation of others’ views when I’ve precisely spelled out, e.g., the six “standard approaches” in question).
Right, I guess within my intuitive conceptions and associations, it’s more like a spectrum, with “perfectly” being the very strongest, “reliably” being somewhere in between, and something like “the tiniest bit better than chance” being the weakest. I suspect many would endorse ~the latter formulation without endorsing anything quite as strong as “reliably”.
To be clear, I don’t think this is a matter of outright misrepresenting others’ views; I just suspect that many, maybe most, of those who hold a contrary view would say that those specific descriptions are not particularly faithful or accurate framings of their views, even if certain sections do frame and address things differently.
The first thought I have is mostly an impression or something that stood out to me: it seems to me like the word choices here sometimes don’t quite reflect the point being made or the full range of views being critiqued, arguably including the strongest competing views.
For example, when talking about heuristics that are supposed to be “robust”, or strategies we can “reliably intervene on”, or whether we can “reliably weigh up” relevant effects, etc, it seems to me that these word choices convey something much stronger than what would necessarily be endorsed by weaker and arguably more defensible types of views that differ from yours.
After all, views different from yours might agree that no heuristics are outright robust and that we can’t reliably weigh up the relevant effects, while nevertheless holding something weaker, like that some heuristics are slightly better than others in expectation, or that we in general can do meaningfully (or even just marginally) better than nothing.
Of course, I get that language is always a bit vague, and I’m sure you meant to include a very broad range of views, including very “weak” ones. But at least in terms of how I read it, the language often seemed to invoke a much stronger and more narrow set of views than necessary.
Thanks Magnus — I’m not sure I understand your objection or which specific language choices in the posts seem too strong, yet.
Can you say a bit more about why you think I haven’t adequately responded to this perspective, in the sequence? (“Degrees of imprecision”, “The ‘better than chance’ argument”, and my response to “Meta-extrapolation” explain why I don’t think “X is slightly better than Y in expectation” makes sense here.)
I should probably have made it more clear that this isn’t an objection, and maybe not even much of a substantive point, but more just a remark on something that stood out to me while reading, namely that the views critiqued often seemed phrased in much stronger terms than what people with competing views would necessarily agree with.
Some of the examples that stood out were those I included in quotes above.
I’m still confused, sorry. E.g., “reliably” doesn’t mean “perfectly”, and my hope was that the surrounding context was enough to make clear what I mean. I’m not sure which alternative phrasings you’d recommend (or why you think there’s a risk of misrepresentation of others’ views when I’ve precisely spelled out, e.g., the six “standard approaches” in question).
Right, I guess within my intuitive conceptions and associations, it’s more like a spectrum, with “perfectly” being the very strongest, “reliably” being somewhere in between, and something like “the tiniest bit better than chance” being the weakest. I suspect many would endorse ~the latter formulation without endorsing anything quite as strong as “reliably”.
To be clear, I don’t think this is a matter of outright misrepresenting others’ views; I just suspect that many, maybe most, of those who hold a contrary view would say that those specific descriptions are not particularly faithful or accurate framings of their views, even if certain sections do frame and address things differently.