From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 22:16:57 MST
Lee Corbin (the indefatigable!) writes:
No insult implied. Its just that I prepared a reply to one of
your posts only to log on and find that you've written another.
I can't keep up :-)
> Brett writes
>
> > Lee Corbin sets up a test as follows:
> >
> > > Brett Paatsch claims that the two extended statements
> > >
> > > A. "I believe that life begins at conception. I believe
> > > that any other points we might choose are essentially
> > > arbitrary and uncertain. And I believe that this is
> > > a view founded not in religion, not in faith, but on
> > > the logic of the matter.
> > >
> > > B. "My working hypothesis is that human existence begins
> > > at conception, and I contend that this is a view founded
> > > not in religion, not in faith, but on logic."
> > >
> > > are not equivalent. I claim that they *are* equivalent.
> > >
> > > Who is correct?
> >
> > Good idea to put the proposition to a test in this way
> > Lee. Your quite right, we should be able to determine
> > empirically whether extropians as a whole perceive
> > a difference between A and B.
>
> Well, obviously there are differences. The question is
> what are they, and how significant are they.
Look up nine lines! No let me guess, there is a philosophical
difference between "they *are* equivalent" and "there are
differences" :-)
>
> > As Eliezer pointed out, B, as set up, is missing a sentence
> > (or A has an extra one), so that confounds the test a little.
>
> Oh, not at all. That sentence is IMO completely redundant.
But you explicitly made your *opinion* one of the variables !
> That the other dividing points between human and non-human
> are "essentially arbitrary and uncertain" follows from the
> guy's claim that his view is based on logic.
>
> > Also its possible that by putting names on the options
> > there might be subtle "allegiance effects" that have little
> > to do with the question being tested. I hope not, but its
> > not impossible, so I'd have preferred the propositions
> > not potentially confound a choice involving support or
> > opposition of either one of our views.
>
> Yes, you're right. I'm in favor of openness almost instinctively,
> but this is a case where the names may have hurt (or could have
> hurt). Never underestimate the unconscious power of ideology,
> even on top of the way "having a judicial temperament" is beyond
> most people capabilities (or desires). But I also confess to
> some annoyance with you, and unkindly strove in pique to expose
> your fallacy to the world at your expense :-)
All is forgiven : ) I have annoyed people before : )
But PLEASE focus on the issue.
> Efforts to change other people's verbal habits are, IMO,
> doomed.
Noted. Along with your changed word habits in recent posts ;-)
> One is already *very* lucky if he makes progress
> in changing someone's ontology, though usually even that
> can only happen unconsciously in the target after months
> or years of unconscious processing.
>
> (Example: Jeff Davis asserts that the "American Holocaust"
> is in full swing now, as is as bad as any other one of the
> 20th century. Since he has planted this idea in our minds,
> the *best* possible outcome for him is for some of us to
> admit years from now that the Americans have directly or
> indirectly been responsible for as many megadeaths as those
> previous regimes, and this will occur when people have long
> ago forgotten where they heard any accusation as "American
> Holocaust".)
I'm not touching that in this post.
>
> (Example: I hope that people's verbal behavior will indeed
> change from blithely throwing the word "rights" around, and
> instead will either say that X approves (X may be a society)
> or speak of "legal rights". But what I am after is completely
> different than what you are after, I think. I want to change
> their belief about what exists, and then have their verbal
> behavior change as a consequence of that. You just want 'em
> to drop the word and say "I think" instead of "I believe"
> or something.)
I am really interested in your views about rights, I don't think
I get them yet, but not in this post.
>
> > Lots of other word memes and phrases could then be tested
> > [like on a web site] including "human life" and
> > "human beings" and we'd have a useful empirical tool easily
> > adapted.
>
> This is what focus groups do for politicians. The
> campaign managers and PR specialists do try out
> various phrases on focus groups to see what goes
> over best. I find it all abhorrent. If one's position
> has not really changed, i.e., actual judgments as to
> the states of affairs, then just using different words
> seems quite dishonest to me.
I think I addressed the rationale for changing words in the other
post.
Oh boy, am I going to get it if (I should say *when*) I make
a mistake in a post that you read. : ) And fair enough too : )
Seriously, I'm not the enemy. Let's not debate for the sake of
debate. I'd enjoy it a bit, just as you do, but I don't want to
be a wiseguy and I *do* want to be an *alive* guy.
Sincere Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST