From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 17:58:40 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 23:15
Subject: Re: Church of Extropia, was Re: David Pizer and his Venturist
Society
> I've always considered the ethical constraint to be "the right conclusion
> for the right reason". In other words, it's not enough to persuade people
> of things that you believe to be true; it is only ethical if you persuade
> people of things that you believe to be true, using arguments that you
> believe to be valid.
...but it's okay to use a model, for example if the person you are speaking
to has never heard of, say, atoms, it's okay to describe them in the
'billiard ball' sense if this model fits the criteria for your conversation.
If a person already thinks in terms of a religious model, why not relate to
them using that model?
>
> The moral constraint is that someone who listens to your arguments, or
> accepts your arguments, should always end up being more
> rational/informed/ethical as a result. Thus, when speaking before an
> irrational audience, one should endeavor to teach them something about
> rationality; not to teach them all about rationality all at once, but
rather
> to encourage them in a few incremental steps. If you're going to try and
> change your listeners, make sure that they are stronger, not weaker, for
the
> experience.
...so is it not more rational for people to believe in a god based on
nanotech than a god based on jesus, (or marklar)? At least the god they
believe in will show real results; repeatable miracles and reliable
cures...water into wine? No problem mate; hand me that replicator...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:48 MST