Eugene Leitl wrote:
>could we all now please make a combined effort, and
>try to bring the list out of the current bad S/N regime?
>This means less one-liners, me-too's, cocktail party chatter, etc.
>Pretty please?
OK, I'll take a shot.
Under standard accounts, decisions are made by combining positions
on values and beliefs about facts. One considers all the possible
relevant states of the world, and beliefs about facts are about how
likely each state is given each action, while positions on values
are about how much one would like each state compared to the others.
People on this list seem to disagree with those not here about many
decisions, so it can make sense to ask: do those disagreements tend
to be more about values, or more about facts?
If we mainly disagree due to differing opinions about the possible
future paths of human technology, or about the effects of political
interventions on economic progress, or about how happy people would
feel if they modified themselves in various ways, then we are
disagreeing mainly about facts.
If we mainly disagree due to our putting a larger weight on future
consequences, or a large weight on being influential in whatever
future comes, or to being less repelled by being highly modified,
or to being less concerned about inequality or to biosphere losses,
or to expecting more dramatic technological progress, then we are
disagreeing mainly about values.
There is less scope for being "right" in disagreements about values.
Once we understand what we want, and opponents decide they don't want
that, there isn't that much more to say to them. "Advocacy" then
consists mostly in seeking out people who haven't considered the
issue and getting them to pick sides. And if there end up being
lots more of them than of us, we may just lose big time.
There is more to say when we and opponents disagree about facts,
because in that case we fundamentally share the same interests, and
are just trying to deal with asymmetric information. But in that
case we should take very seriously the fact that others disagree
with us. Even if they haven't articulated their reasoning to our
satisfaction, we have also failed to do so for them, and assuming
they aren't stupid we have to realize that they may know things
that show why we are wrong.
So which is it, do our disagreements with opponents tend to be more
about values, or more about facts?
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:51 MDT