| I am really not sure where you get any of these ideas. For each of your critiques, there are not only discussions, but taxonomies of compendiums of discussions about the topics at hand on LessWrong, which can easily be found by Googling any keyword or phrase in your comment. On "considering what should be the baseline assumption": https://www.lesswrong.com/w/epistemology https://www.lesswrong.com/w/priors, particularly https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hNqte2p48nqKux3wS/trapped-pr... On the idea that "rationalists think that they can just apply rationality infinitely to everything": https://www.lesswrong.com/w/bounded-rationality On the critique that rationalists are blind to the fact that "reason isn't the only thing that's important", generously reworded as "reason has to be grounded in a set of human values", some of the most philosophically coherent stuff I see on the internet is from LW: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/metaethics-sequence https://www.lesswrong.com/w/human-values On "systematically plan to validate": https://www.lesswrong.com/w/rationality-verification https://www.lesswrong.com/w/making-beliefs-pay-rent On "what could hold true for one moment could easily shift": https://www.lesswrong.com/w/black-swans https://www.lesswrong.com/w/distributional-shifts https://www.lesswrong.com/w/forecasting-and-prediction |
I support anyone trying to form rational pictures of the universe and humanity. If the LessWrong community approach seems to make sense and is enriching to your understanding of the world then I am happy for you. But, every time I try to take a serious delve into LessWrong, and I have done it multiple times over the years, it sets off my cult/scam alerts.