> That's entirely true, it *may* contain such defects for the reason
> that you give. But it is also always *possible*, I'm sure that you
> will agree, that it contains inaccuracies, omissions, and other
> defects that you are simply unaware of. :-)
Well, they mean the same thing don't they? If I actually publish the paper, I must ensure that some people had discussed it and perhaps even peer-reviewed it. I would find it foolhardy to do otherwise.
> Yes. Note that these are *ideas* which conflict. As yet, there is no mention
> of harmful conflict.
I don't see conflicts as harmful or not. The dictionary defines conflicts as:
1) A state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests
2) A disagreement or argument about something important
I define conflict here as:
1) An irreconcilable difference in thinking that remains irreconcilable for various reasons, including:
a) lack of a consistent system of thinking (i.e. logic)
b) lack of decisive knowledge (i.e. ignorance)
c) lack of a common reference point (i.e. misunderstandings)
I don't see conflicts as harmful or useful, because when they occur, it means something had gone wrong with our thought processes or knowledge. In the case of two opposing conflicts, it means at least one of them has no validity, or both has validity. This means we should rectify our thought processes and information storage so that we crease disagreement.
I suppose what you mean by "harmful" conflicts the consequence of not ignoring, converting or resolving by logic the opposition. Then, we may find results ranging from angry sneering to atomic warfare. Unlike some people who claim that everyone "is right in his own way", I think that we can (objectively) agree on a certain set of rules and logic. If not, then discussions have no purpose as they can achieve nothing.
As for "useful" conflicts, I assume you mean the open exchange and discussions of ideas. Such differences I do not classify as conflicts, but as potential conflicts. Whenever a potential conflict materialises into a conflict would rely on how people deal with it. In an irrational society, conflicts would arise automatically, but for a rational society they would remain as potential conflicts until the parties resolve them with new knowledge or exchange of information that reduces misunderstanding.
> > What if all of you think irrationally (yes, even skeptics can think irrationally
> > skeptical), refusing to accept each other's perspective? You will have three
> > options: Shut up about your ideas, start a conflict with your neighbors or live
> > away from them.
>
> Wrong, if by "conflict" you mean a development of unhealthy relationships.
> An exchange of ideas is good, and even critical disapproval and disdainfulness
> is often productive.
Well, I mean censorship by 1) ignorance, 2) force, and 3) seperation. Due to a lack of proper definition by my dictionary, I define censorship as the suppression of the free flow of information to everyone.
No matter what, if unhealthy relationships develop, then one cannot consider it positive even if it arose in the context of a discussion. Making an enemy because of discussion differences has no relevance to the problem since one still had not resolved the root of the thought differences, and thus invalid logic.
> But often conflicts *need not* spiral out of control. Most of Earth's people
> actually live in peaceful societies where these bloodbaths, brutal violence,
> and warfare do not occur. It turns out that anthropological studies have
> discovered that humankind is the most peaceful of all primates. If you
> carefully and scientifically observe, as students have now done, then per
> thousand hours of observation, human beings are vastly less prone to violence
> than any of the other primates. This is a point that cannot (almost) be
> repeated too often. (It is also true that among large mammals, humans
> are comparitively very non-violent.)
Non-violent? I find it unusual to hear that. If we look back into the past, for about every decade of peace, we have nine decades of war. I can hardly call that peaceful. Assuming you wrote accurately, humans don't get into violence as readily as others because we have norms (and ethics) backed by laws (and usually, censorship) to prevent us from doing so. Of course, rationality counts too.
Conflicts do not spiral out of control due to censorship, as pointed out previously. However, they still exist. If you don't believe me, try visiting having two zealous missionaries of different religions meet each other.
> Doesn't follow at all! In fact, it's those very people who refuse to admit
> (more or less) that conflict among ideas exists, who are often the least
> likely to attempt to impose their way on others.
Well, I assume you need to understand the concept of "doubletalk" better. They say this, then do something inconsistent with what they say. A government can claim that everyone has valid points to placate different fractions, but yet impose its own ideas, views and decisions onto others. A false critic can claim that he or she will consider everyone's point, but does not back this up with actual consideration. Of course, a newspaper reporter can claim to report objectively, but sways to political concerns and the fear of losing his or her job by inserting pro-government propagenda.
They don't believe in logic, thus, you cannot use literal logic to evaluate their behaviour as you cannot expect them to behave logically.
> > You may wonder what if we all think rationally even when starting with
> > irrational beliefs. In such a case, we will actively seek viewpoints contrary
> > to our own to minimize guilt (of learning about the truth too late) and in our
> > quest for a more accurate personal theory about the universe.
>
> Very well said. I had never suspected that guilt (or embarrassment)
> was a factor, but yes, that's true too. And long live our quests
> for not only a more accurate personal theory about the universe, but
> for theories whose truth appeals to all people and intelligent entities.
This consists of the major factor why finding out the truth as early as possible has such high importance. Ignorance can provide bliss only in the absense of regret. Better sad than sorry.
> > Eventually, through the free exchange of incompatible views and from
> > our seeking of more knowledge, we will come across a theory that
> > satisfies all the logical prerequisites.
>
> Well, that should be rephrased. I totally agree with the idea
> behind it, but literally it is not at all true that a theory
> that satisfied *all* the logical prerequisites---I would say
> requirements---will necessarily ever be found. We must strive
> only (and always) towards *better* explanations. A completely
> satisfactory explanation may always elude us, and worse, may
> not in some cases even exist.
Yes, probably I should say that the theory *apparently* satisfies all the logical prerequisites. For instance, the knotty problem of whether light constitutes particles or waves had a possible and generally accepted solution that combines both sub-theories together.
> > Hence, in a society with even one irrational member, we have to exercise
> > censorship to prevent conflicts from occurring, or we will have to live outside
> > each other's influence.
>
> I haven't read your ideas about new colonies or whatever, but
> I myself in a different thread posted what may be a similar
> idea, namely, that *distance* is a proven safeguard against
> overwhelming force, radical technology, or dangerous physical
> conflicts.
Well, we may actually find ourselves on the same track. Maybe we can say that, Interaction, and thus conflicts, increases with the cube distance of proximity (in 3D space) and sqaure distance (on seemingly flat Earth)
> > However, in a society with only rational members, we
> > will eventually come to a common consensus while enjoying
> > free speech. Hence, the paradox shows itself.
>
> I see no paradox so far.
Well, in an irrational society, you cannot have no conflicts and free speech at the same time since you would have to knock out censorship which will unleash all the conflicts. However, in a rational society, we need not worry about this, because of rationality we would automatically have no conflicts and a free exchange of ideas. I classify it as a paradox as something that seems impossible in one frame can exist in another without effort.
> By the way, it is asking a whole lot for a large society to
> consist entirely of rational members. By that, I mean that
> there will always be people, unfortunately, who reason extremely
> poorly or never engage in it, or who are mentally unstable,
> or who stick to peculiar and aberrant dogmas.
Well, the colony will only permit rational people into it then. Anyway, since it operates in a rational manner, irrational people would most likely dislike it very quickly if they try to pass themselves off. I do not mean that everyone must always think rationally all the time because I recognise the limits of rationality (as well as Godel's theorm). For a more eloboration explaination, you will find it useful to read the paper.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:02 MDT