Stirling Westrup wrote:
>
> Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> > I asked:
> > >Under standard accounts, decisions are made by combining positions
> > >on values and beliefs about facts. ... So which is it, do our
> > >disagreements with opponents tend to be more about values, or more
> > >about facts?
> >
> > Many people here don't seem to accept the standard account of decisions.
> > John Clark is the only one who gave a straight answer: "Values I think."
>
> I previously ignored the question, not because I don't have an answer, but
> because I've usually discovered difficulties due to a failure to agree on
> what are facts and what are values. In particular, I hold that certain
> things are facts, and others claim that they are values, which they don't
> adhere to. What category do I put such things in?
>
> As an example, I will state that there is no reason to believe that there
> is any fundamental limit to the human lifespan if assisted by appropriate
> technology. This is so clearly a fact to me, that I have trouble figuring
> out how to reply to someone who holds that it is merely part of my value
> system, and that they have different values.
Facts are things demonstrated to be true by repeated experiment and observation.
Values are opinions about what facts, conditions, etc are beneficial to the
individual. Your statment above is neither of these. It is merely an unproven
opinion or conjecture. What would be a value would be your opinion that the
alleged truth of the above statment would be a good thing.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:19 MDT