From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 21:04:28 MST
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com> writes:
> If the scientific community decides that it's okay to argue emotionally,
> technophilia will win a lot more political arguments. But there would be
> a cost to the effectiveness of the scientific community at large.
There is a difference between the scientific discourse within science,
trying to refine knowledge in a stringent way, and the discourse
outwards, where it has to be simplified and may benefit from stronger
emotions. I guess this is why popular science has had a somewhat bad
reputation among many scientists the last century or so. But being
able to forcefully and eloquently express not just scientific results
but why they are meaningful and beautiful, that is both necessary and
harder than it seems. Good communicators like Carl Sagan are rare, but
I think we should all include attempts to move in this direction in
our own individual self-transformation plans.
Logos, ethos and pathos. We need a balance between them, and that is
why we transhumanists need to be both versed in the sciences and
humanities.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:39 MST