Re: The Conjunction Fallacy Fallacy [WAS Re: Anti-singularity spam.]

From: Damien Broderick (
Date: Sun Aug 27 2006 - 13:21:43 MDT

At 02:20 PM 8/27/2006 -0400, Mark Waser wrote:

>You have apparently modeled Richard's argument as simplistic and
>lacking your deep understanding of the field. Unfortunately, the
>evidence that I have seen indicates that he has understood and
>answered 100% of your arguments whereas you have clearly refused to
>address his arguments once they reach the point of (successully)
>answering your initial knee-jerk responses. I see no evidence of
>your having any more understanding of the field than he does and
>indeed actually note that you seem to need to be constantly trying
>to steer the conversation from the field that Richard initially
>brought up (mental modeling) to one that you are more comfortable
>with (heuristics and biases) -- despite the fact that the relevance
>of this change is obviously disputable.

I dislike "me too" posts, but in this case Mark has captured
skillfully pretty much all the objections that I had been intending
to raise to Eliezer's intemperate and indeed preposterous post. No
doubt this will have no better effect than to persuade Eliezer and
his fanboys that Richard, Mark and I are all far too stupid and
ignorant to be bothered conversing with. It was fairly inevitable
that the list would end up drifting in this direction, but I still
regard that as a great shame.

Damien Broderick

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT