@themattsimpson Thanks for prodding me! I’ve posted a rough draft at http://meaningness.com/metablog/probability-and-logic … cc: @st_rev @GabrielDuquette
-
-
@GabrielDuquette LW does teach some basic thinking skills that may be difficult to find in any other one place. I applaud that.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@GabrielDuquette Nowadays there’s a “critical thinking curriculum” which didn’t exist when I was in teens/20s. Not sure how much overlap.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@GabrielDuquette As I said, my reaction is dual: YAY RATIONALITY and YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. So, for the second half of that:1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@GabrielDuquette I don’t think LW teaches its subject matter well, just in terms of pedagogy. However, may be no better alternative; dunno!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@GabrielDuquette More seriously, the conceptual foundations of LW-think are WRONG, and that becomes increasingly distorting >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@GabrielDuquette > as it moves into more advanced topics and techniques. So it’s probably good for high school students and maybe undergrads1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@GabrielDuquette but it’s seriously misleading for anyone who’s heading toward graduate school. They should learn rationality elsewhere.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.