From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 19:31:02 MST
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Adrian Tymes wrote, commenting on
whether we can ever "change minds":
> Yes. Granted, it is almost always in contexts where
> new information brings different values to the same
> system of deductions, rather than where the system of
> deductions was itself changed, but it has happened.
Ok, yes -- I will grant the "minds change in the face
of overwhelmingly superior knowledge". I could bury
one in minutia regarding computer architectures and
genes involved in aging. Eliezer could bury us in
the details of developing an evolved AI. Greg in the
complexity of the fine points of international law,
Max in fine points of significant philosophical positions,
Anders in the details of how certain subsegments of the
brain contribute to "intelligence", Amara on the numerous
fine details on the distribution of *dust* in our solar
system.
That is one of the things that makes the ExI list so
interesting. If you have been around even a little while
one knows when to defer to greater expertise.
So, ok, I will grant this point (see I'm changing my mind) --
in the face of a huge body of evidence that you don't know
what you are talking about and it is clear that other
contributers might be much more well informed -- Extropians
do indeed "change their minds". So we capture back the
"rational thinking" vector. (That at least is a step
in the right direction.)
> For example, I had been thinking cryonics was horribly
> expensive, doomed to remain accessible only to the
> idle rich; the facts, I have learned, are otherwise.
Ok -- a good example to cite. You were under misimpressions
and conversations on the the list provided new education
that caused you to re-evalueate some previous conclusions.
(I'll grant a "change of mind" card to this.).
> The emotional debates tend to be unproductive, yes.
> Stick to the facts, and you may convince people.
> Stick to emotions, and you mainly preach to the choir.
Now this may be an important observation (it goes back
somewhat to Greg's recent comments I think).
How do we promote discussions based on "facts" (or perhaps
qualify them when the facts may be open to debate)?
This may get very hard -- even considering the relatively neutral
topic of cosmology -- recent articles have created questions about
everything from the shape (and lifetime) of the universe to cosmic
ray particle densities. If one can't count on the "facts" of the
universe itself -- what "facts" can you count on?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 19:38:05 MST