From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 09:54:44 MDT
At 11:26 AM 6/18/2003 -0400, Mark Walker wrote:
>We've seen arguments that _explain_ why it might be important to pursue or
>belief the truth in some contexts and not others. ... This tells us why we do
>and do not pursue the truth, but it doesn't answer the question of whether
>we _ought_ to. I take it from the betting market idea that the idea is that
>we ought to pursue greater truth. But why should we suppose that it is
>better to throw off "the shackles" of self-deception rather than truth
>seeking? Perhaps with better technology our self-deception could be more
>complete. ... Perhaps ... every day you go into truth mode for a few moments
>to get done those things in your life that require knowing the truth ...
>... if there is a fact of the matter whether the greater truth seeking
>life or the greater self-deception life is better then the best (and perhaps
>the only way) would be to run the experiment (i.e., live for a while each
>conception of the good life).
I'm not sure whether the short-term experience of living each way tells you
enough to decide which is the good life. But I grant that self-deception
may be what some, or even most people, really want in reflective equilibrium.
In my paper proposing betting markets as as the factual input to a form of
government (http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf), I suggest that people who
do not want to face uncomfortable truths can probably successfully avoid
paying much attention to such markets, just as people today who want to
believe in the virtue of politics manage to avoid seeing how the sausage
is made. Bet in the markets the few minutes a day you are rational, and then
go back to your blissful ignorance.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 10:04:27 MDT