Why I Am Not Rene Descartes

A rebuttal to a 'Why I Am Not A Rationalist' post that conflates rationalism(Descartes) with rationalism(Yudkowsky/internet-rationalism). Sections I-IV: the critique is confused — it attacks the movement for lacking empiricism/scholarship/humility, but those are literally its founding Twelve Virtues, and Descartes himself was a prolific experimentalist (vivisectionist); the critic is 'sitting in an armchair speculating about what rationalism must be.' Section V is the generative core: even granting empiricism is crucial, why isn't it enough? Because rationality is drawing correct inferences from limited/confusing/contradictory/maliciously-doctored facts ('a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies is what tells you psychic powers exist; critical thinking tells you whether to trust it'; 'a rational person who knows one study > an irrational person who knows fifty'), with the martial-arts / 'everybody decides their beliefs alone' framing and the cowpox-of-doubt.

Quality 72 · Strong. 72 — high Strong. Sections I-IV are an entertaining but narrow takedown of a weak post; section V's empiricism-vs-rationality distinction (rationality as inference-quality on messy facts) is a genuinely generative, oft-cited contribution that lifts the whole piece to high-Strong.

Claude’s paradigm shift 55 · Moderate. 55 — Notable. Section V's empiricism-vs-rationality-as-inference-quality framing is a fresh, generative point; the rest is rebuttal.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 — minor/within-blog. Influential within rationalist self-understanding; discourse-level.

Humor 2/5 · Man of One Study. 2 — gate PASSES. The opening Ron-Paul/free-will/Swiss-Calvinist parody is an intentional comedic analogy that carries the core category-error argument (load-bearing), and the indignant-funny rebuttal register ('DO YOU EVEN HAVE EYES?') is a genuine notable feature — the serious-piece-with-notable-humor tier (2).