From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 17:40:54 MDT
Hal writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > So whatever the outcome of (a), I discussed here no less than five
> > other reasons. I think that those reasons have stood the test of time,
> > especially including (f).
It would be interesting if someone could suggest a reason for
me to change my reasons (a) - (f), except (a).
> If you are trying to be rational, it's something of a danger sign if
> your opinions are unchanged by facts.
Indeed, it can be even more than that; it can be a sign
of insanity. Yet it can also be simply the way the human
mind, thankfully, works. Suppose that in an argument
you were having with someone about Newton's gravitation
formula, your adversary says, "Look, I'll simply demonstrate
that it's flawed", and then levitates a few feet. Would your
opinion of Newton's law be affected by this fact?
The reason, of course, is that it takes a lot of energy and
time to reorganize your entire world view. So instead of
cheerfully saying, "Gee, I guess you are right, and that
Newton was wrong", you'd probably scowl and say, "There's
gotta be another explanation!"
> It could be an indication that your beliefs are being
> controlled by an ideology. In order to protect themselves
> and remain stable, ideologies control your perceptions and
> make it hard to change your mind about things.
Of course. But ideologies aren't all bad. They can reflect
an accumulated wisdom over many decades. So whether it's in
your eagerness to dismiss flying saucer reports, or reports
that 5000 Iraqi children were starving to death each month,
one's ideology can actually be helpful.
But no one more than I has blasted those who nonetheless
refuse to admit that they are ideological, and that they
*can* be blinded by ideology. It's just part of a wider
phenomenon; for example, older scientists were blinded
by their allegiance to the classical world, and simply
could not "see" the truths of relativity. IMO, there are
no general rules to get us out of this basic fact of life.
You sound as though someone could take Hal Finney's "Ten
Weeks to Complete Rationality" course and all would be well.
> Given all the surprises and unexpected developments of the circumstances
> surrounding the Iraq war, I think it would be quite unusual for a rational
> person to be able to look back and say, if I knew then what I know now,
> my degree of support for the war would be unchanged.
To draw the line between those who obviously subscribe to an
ideology and the class of "rational persons" is a big mistake.
I have never claimed my own ideological opponents to be
irrational---and those who go around announcing that a lot
of other people are "irrational", "stupid", "not thinking
clearly", etc., are, IMO, quite incorrect.
And as for making bad predictions, I cannot prove that I ever
said the following (as I did prove what my reasons had been
and are for going to war). But I thought that the war would
take less than two months, and admitted to friends that if it
went longer than that "it would be a long war". I did write
on this list somewhere that fewer than 1000 U.S. casualties
would be incurred. But I also predicted that the battle for
Baghdad would be severe, and that some parts of the city would
have to be taken street-by-street. I am only too happy to
admit that I was wrong, and would appreciate anyone pointing
out where else I was wrong.
A big mystery also remains about the WMD. Where did they go?
Or were the reports of their existence as far back as 1996
completely mistaken? I freely admitted in my last post as
to perhaps being wrong about reason (a) of my list (a)-(e).
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 08:16:20 MDT