This is a solid article, because certainly some people do identify with the rationalist tribe despite being not very good at it (isn't it true of all tribes?). But there's something else that bothers me about the rationalist tribe.
Why do people join it? Why does someone self-identify as a rationalist?
For the most part people are rational within the framework they have that allows them to get by in the world. Sure it's important to question beliefs to further the state of science, etc, but why is is it critical that any idea one holds be proven to the best of our abilities? I don't understand why belief in god has to imply there is anything magic or supernatural; it just might be something we don't understand. Certainly it seems possible that the universe exists within frameworks whose workings can never be fully understood from our current physical position. The rationalist view seems to be to let the astrophysicists do their work, but don't you dare believe in something that is outside the realm of what they will eventually discover.
I understand religion has done a lot of awful things in the past, and so it deserves to be torn down as an institution, but most bad things are propagated by extremely rational actors out of greed and self-interest. I don't see the harm in people believing in astrology or not being atheists, I'd rather see the rationalists take their arguments against the people who are actually doing major harm in the world (eg. profiting from massive environmental destruction).
I would argue that a tendency to not recognize the lack of merit in an idea is harmful in itself. Let us take your example of astrology. What harm is there in believing it, despite no evidence nor any reason to suspect it is even a good hypothesis?
For one, you might waste resources such as money and time reading about it, or getting readings. A minor thing perhaps. On the other hand, what about people who believe in it so deeply that they give away all their fortunes chasing nothing? What if someone ruins a relationship because they read in their horoscope that they should be wary of their partner?
These are just a few example. I would also hypothesis that if one is willing to believe in one thing such as astrology, they are also likely believe in other things. Those other beliefs may also hold hidden dangers. Thus, it is important to always practice undiscriminating scepticism. Always try recognize what you don't know.
I'll just speak for myself in answering your question. Other people who self-identify as rationalists may have other reasons. I self-identify as a rationalist because, after a lifetime of being curious and wanting to know what is true, I have found rationalism a powerful instrumental means of discovering truth. I have found from observation of my own life that knowledge of truth is itself an instrumental means for pursuing other useful goals (for example, making a living for my family) but anyway I think truth-seeking is part of human nature at its best and something fun and worthy for its own sake.
most bad things are propagated by extremely rational actors out of greed and self-interest
I might disagree with you about there being very many "extremely rational actors" in the world,
but I agree with you that many bad acts are prompted by greed and self interest. One of the greatest achievements of rational thought has been a deeper understanding of how human moral sentiments
and promises to provide continued blessings of more peace, prosperity, and freedom as it becomes more widely known to humankind. So I pursue rationalism as a positive good for my family and for my society, after having had a childhood upbringing with more nonrational dogmas than I know adhere to.
I think rationality is useful because it is the only reliable path to truth. And truth is required to accomplishing almost everything. Except happiness...which may have been your original point.
Or more generally, inner truth. This is why I am not a rationalist or an objectivist. Human experience itself is subjective, and even if through supreme rationality we are able to pry apart our psyches and lay it bare as a pile of neurons then what? Do we feel good about that?
I choose to believe in a higher consciousness because it makes my life richer, not because I am hiding from rational, physical, objective truth.
To some degree it sounds like the author is just describing another "tribe": the one that he is a part of.
The main argument of the piece is: don't trust that someone who calls themselves a skeptic is a "good" skeptic until they've expressed a skeptical opinion that cuts against the grain of mainstream belief. Otherwise, they may be just pretending to be a rationalist when they really just believe whatever the mainstream believes.
These are his main examples:
> Personally, I think that Michael Shermer blew it by mocking molecular nanotechnology, and Penn and Teller blew it by mocking cryonics ... Conversely, Richard Dawkins scooped up a huge truckload of actual-discriminating-skeptic points, at least in my book, for not making fun of the many-worlds interpretation when he was asked about in an interview;
The Dawkins example demonstrates his thesis very clearly. Dawkins is skeptical of a generally accepted theory (that the OP is also skeptical of) therefore the OP now considers him an "actual-disciminating-skeptic". However, his first two examples attempt to support the inverse of his thesis: if someone expresses a skeptical opinion that agrees with the mainstream, then they are not a "good" skeptic ("they blew it"). But that is a ridiculous claim that the OP himself dismisses in the first few paragraphs talking about how religion is no longer a good litmus test for skepticism. So, it seems like the OP is actually arguing that if a self professed skeptic expresses a mainstream skeptical opinion that the OP disagrees with, then they are not a "good" skeptic. Which is a bad, close-minded argument. The OP places himself in a "rationalist" tribe where dissenting opinions are no more tolerated than they are in the mainstream tribe.
I think your characterization is very unfair to the article. Right after what you quoted, the following is stated explicitly:
"Of course you may not trust me about any of [the examples you wrote about]. And so my purpose today is not to propose a new litmus test to replace atheism.
But I do propose that before you give anyone credit for being a smart, rational skeptic, that you ask them to defend some non-mainstream belief...you ought to have to stick your neck out and say something a little less usual - say where you are not skeptical (and most of your tribemates are) or where you are skeptical (and most of the people in your tribe are not)."
I don't see how it can be written any clearer than that. The point of picking those examples is not that they are the perfect tests of skepticism; it's that most of the Less Wrong readership has thought hard about cryonics, many-worlds, nanotech, and AI, and so they are some reasonable examples.
I stand by what I wrote. My main issue is with the Shermer, Penn, and Teller examples. The author uses those to attempt to prove a different point than the rest of the article discusses, and it is a bad point. There's a difference between saying "Someone is probably a 'good' skeptic if they have said something that the mainstream disagrees with" and saying "Someone is probably a 'bad' skeptic (charlatan?) if they have said something the mainstream agrees with that I disagree with." Even if that label is only personal (as you quote, he's not trying to make everyone apply the same labels to those people) it is a bad way to apply it.
However, I also find the whole idea of a "skeptic test" a bit disquieting. Paraphrasing what you quoted above: "Don't give someone credit for being a smart, rational skeptic until they have defended some non-mainstream belief, until they have stuck their neck out to say something a little less usual." That's a bit aggressive for my taste.
No, the Shermer example is right on. Shermer knows he dishonestly argued against cryonics; he knows that his little frozen-strawberry example is factually incorrect (see his admission in http://web.archive.org/web/20100306205336/http://leitl.org/d...) but still published it.
He's using the acceptability within a tribe as an indicator of someone's rationality, but not a full-test of their rationality. The real test is in their arguments. If they do not have strong, rational arguments, then they are not rational skeptics. They are undiscriminating skeptics.
Indeed, this site often has good general points, but botches the details. The good general point: Being a skeptic involves reviewing evidence on generally accepted things, as well as implausible things.
I think a wonderful example of the phenomenon of people expressing skepticism that goes against their tribe is the recent Carrier IQ senstation.
There is, as far as I know, no clear evidence of what exactly is being recorded, and what exactly is being sent. Several people on HN yesterday pointed this out, and then pointed out that it's possible what's being recorded and sent are benign stats that most of us agree to in other places, such as with a web browser. This skepticism was not met well by our tribe.
16 comments
[ 6.1 ms ] story [ 51.9 ms ] threadWhy do people join it? Why does someone self-identify as a rationalist?
For the most part people are rational within the framework they have that allows them to get by in the world. Sure it's important to question beliefs to further the state of science, etc, but why is is it critical that any idea one holds be proven to the best of our abilities? I don't understand why belief in god has to imply there is anything magic or supernatural; it just might be something we don't understand. Certainly it seems possible that the universe exists within frameworks whose workings can never be fully understood from our current physical position. The rationalist view seems to be to let the astrophysicists do their work, but don't you dare believe in something that is outside the realm of what they will eventually discover.
I understand religion has done a lot of awful things in the past, and so it deserves to be torn down as an institution, but most bad things are propagated by extremely rational actors out of greed and self-interest. I don't see the harm in people believing in astrology or not being atheists, I'd rather see the rationalists take their arguments against the people who are actually doing major harm in the world (eg. profiting from massive environmental destruction).
For one, you might waste resources such as money and time reading about it, or getting readings. A minor thing perhaps. On the other hand, what about people who believe in it so deeply that they give away all their fortunes chasing nothing? What if someone ruins a relationship because they read in their horoscope that they should be wary of their partner?
These are just a few example. I would also hypothesis that if one is willing to believe in one thing such as astrology, they are also likely believe in other things. Those other beliefs may also hold hidden dangers. Thus, it is important to always practice undiscriminating scepticism. Always try recognize what you don't know.
I'll just speak for myself in answering your question. Other people who self-identify as rationalists may have other reasons. I self-identify as a rationalist because, after a lifetime of being curious and wanting to know what is true, I have found rationalism a powerful instrumental means of discovering truth. I have found from observation of my own life that knowledge of truth is itself an instrumental means for pursuing other useful goals (for example, making a living for my family) but anyway I think truth-seeking is part of human nature at its best and something fun and worthy for its own sake.
most bad things are propagated by extremely rational actors out of greed and self-interest
I might disagree with you about there being very many "extremely rational actors" in the world,
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stanovich1/Engli...
but I agree with you that many bad acts are prompted by greed and self interest. One of the greatest achievements of rational thought has been a deeper understanding of how human moral sentiments
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Moral-Sentiments-Great-Philosop...
can be motivated by the actions of human beings pursuing their self-interest.
http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/dp/0553...
This discovery has resulted in considerable reduction of violence and other bad things over time,
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0...
and promises to provide continued blessings of more peace, prosperity, and freedom as it becomes more widely known to humankind. So I pursue rationalism as a positive good for my family and for my society, after having had a childhood upbringing with more nonrational dogmas than I know adhere to.
I choose to believe in a higher consciousness because it makes my life richer, not because I am hiding from rational, physical, objective truth.
The main argument of the piece is: don't trust that someone who calls themselves a skeptic is a "good" skeptic until they've expressed a skeptical opinion that cuts against the grain of mainstream belief. Otherwise, they may be just pretending to be a rationalist when they really just believe whatever the mainstream believes.
These are his main examples:
> Personally, I think that Michael Shermer blew it by mocking molecular nanotechnology, and Penn and Teller blew it by mocking cryonics ... Conversely, Richard Dawkins scooped up a huge truckload of actual-discriminating-skeptic points, at least in my book, for not making fun of the many-worlds interpretation when he was asked about in an interview;
The Dawkins example demonstrates his thesis very clearly. Dawkins is skeptical of a generally accepted theory (that the OP is also skeptical of) therefore the OP now considers him an "actual-disciminating-skeptic". However, his first two examples attempt to support the inverse of his thesis: if someone expresses a skeptical opinion that agrees with the mainstream, then they are not a "good" skeptic ("they blew it"). But that is a ridiculous claim that the OP himself dismisses in the first few paragraphs talking about how religion is no longer a good litmus test for skepticism. So, it seems like the OP is actually arguing that if a self professed skeptic expresses a mainstream skeptical opinion that the OP disagrees with, then they are not a "good" skeptic. Which is a bad, close-minded argument. The OP places himself in a "rationalist" tribe where dissenting opinions are no more tolerated than they are in the mainstream tribe.
"Of course you may not trust me about any of [the examples you wrote about]. And so my purpose today is not to propose a new litmus test to replace atheism.
But I do propose that before you give anyone credit for being a smart, rational skeptic, that you ask them to defend some non-mainstream belief...you ought to have to stick your neck out and say something a little less usual - say where you are not skeptical (and most of your tribemates are) or where you are skeptical (and most of the people in your tribe are not)."
I don't see how it can be written any clearer than that. The point of picking those examples is not that they are the perfect tests of skepticism; it's that most of the Less Wrong readership has thought hard about cryonics, many-worlds, nanotech, and AI, and so they are some reasonable examples.
However, I also find the whole idea of a "skeptic test" a bit disquieting. Paraphrasing what you quoted above: "Don't give someone credit for being a smart, rational skeptic until they have defended some non-mainstream belief, until they have stuck their neck out to say something a little less usual." That's a bit aggressive for my taste.
The details? Just as you say.
There is, as far as I know, no clear evidence of what exactly is being recorded, and what exactly is being sent. Several people on HN yesterday pointed this out, and then pointed out that it's possible what's being recorded and sent are benign stats that most of us agree to in other places, such as with a web browser. This skepticism was not met well by our tribe.
http://mises.org/resources/4318/Scientism-and-Values
Too often it's not "facts" and "science" that are being debated, but rather values, even though postmodern philosophers have doubted the distinction.