On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> J. R. Molloy wrote,
> > From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> > > > > My fear is that any system that destroys groups for incorrect
> > > > > thinking will quickly turn on us!
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't sound like much to be afraid of.
> > >
> > > But who decides what is correct thinking?
> > When you wrote "a system" I thought you meant "a system" -- not
> > a group of people.
> > Or, to test if thinking is incorrect, look at its results.
> > Incorrect thinking
> > is that which doesn't work. Come to think of it, we already have
> > a system that
> > can identify incorrect thinking... it's called science.
> This sounds good, but even systems have to be interpreted by people. Has
> cryonics produced results? Has nanotech produced results? Has life
> extension produced results? Someone has to interpret the value of potential
> results. Even these scientific technologies are controversial with many
> scientists claiming that they do not and never will produce results. There
> will always be disagreements. I still fear one parson's science being
> forced onto others. There is no one-true-science any more than there is
What if making those interpretations and evaluations constitute another
science? A science of ethics-morality-evaluating?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT