From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu May 23 2002 - 13:33:19 MDT
On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 02:25 pm, Lee Corbin wrote:
> In the 19th century, those who went around most often quoting scripture
> would turn out to be the hypocrites least likely to actually be living
> in
> accordance with the Good Book.
But that would be an appeal to authority without giving logical
reasoning to support an action. That is invalid.
> Later, those who relentlessly accused others of being "Un-American"
> would turn out to be those who had the least understanding of what
> the traditions of liberty and freedom of speech were all about.
This is because they are appealing to emotionalism without proper
science or rationality to back up their positions.
> So why should I be surprised if those quickest to cry "That's
> Un-Extropian!"
> should be those who appear to understand the Extropian principles the
> least?
Bad analogy. The Extropian Principles are founded on logic, the
scientific method, rationality, noncoercive freedoms and nondogmatic
thought. Quoting the Extropian Principles is more like pointing out an
arithmetic flaw rather than quoting scripture or appealing to patriotism.
> The nauseating stench of political correctness can be seen all to easily
> in mindless "Amens!". If people don't have anything original to add to
> a discussion, shouldn't they remain silent?
Rather than trying to give your opponents a "bad" label, why don't you
provide evidence for your position instead? Why should we judge people
by group? Why should we disregard individual freedoms? Why should we
follow your proposals. I see opponents pointing out principles of
rationality and freedom that you so readily seem willing to violate, but
I don't see you offering any of your own evidence. You are playing the
victim and pointing fingers at others. You are the one proposing an
(apparently) unpopular idea. If you want it accepted, you need to give
some sort of reasoning.
> Oh no! Because the real purpose of piling-on is not to exchange ideas,
> but rather to exert social pressure. When collectivists used to speak
> up
> on Extropians, five posts---all identical and some of them copying
> others
> ---would, with inflammatory language, immediately descend on the
> unfortunate, merely to make it clear to him that his views were
> unwelcome.
You confuse questions with attacks. You confuse points of order with
points of guilt. You confuse quoting references with quoting dogma. No
one said your views aren't welcome here. We just want some sort of
information. Why do you support your views? Why do you reject certain
Extropian Principles? Or why do you interpret certain Extropian
Principles differently than others? Why is coercion OK in this instance
if it isn't elsewhere? Or why is coercion OK elsewhere or anywhere?
These aren't attacks. These are merely questions. You totally
underestimate the intensity of our flamewars if you confuse this minor
exchange with a coordinated attack against you.
> Those who tell someone "that's not in accord with the Principles!" or
> ask "where do you find justification for *that* in the Principles?" may
> not realize it, but they are acting to establish a Party Line, and
> acting
> towards institutionalizing belief.
Yep, if the institutionalized belief is logic, rationality, science, and
rational thought. It is valid to point out that something is in
violation of accepted scientific procedures, or if a conclusion is not
justified under standard rules of logic, or if justification for an idea
cannot be found in any established evidence. This is how we test new
ideas.
How else do you suggest we evaluate new ideas if we don't reference
these things?
> They've got the cart before the horse:
> the extropian principles only *summarize* what some very clear thinking
> and articulate extropians have thought, and they are of course always
> subject to criticism or even outright denial. The Extropian principles
> should derive from the ideas and beliefs of people, not the other way
> around.
WRONG in what you claim it is, WRONG in what you claim it should be, and
WRONG in what you claim people are doing wrong.
The Extropian Principles are TOOLS used to further extropy. They are
not on opinion or a majority vote. I don't know where this idea is
coming from. Scientific method is a METHOD of determining truth, it is
not a majority vote of what scientists belief. Rules of Logic are
mathematical theorems that proof or refute logical sequences. They are
not a majority vote of what logicians think should be. Rational thought
is a mode of thinking about ideas, it is not a list of predefined ideas
themselves.
So when people point out a logical flaw, it is like a math error. It is
not quoting dogma. It is pointing out invalid thought. Not politically
incorrect thought because it comes to the wrong conclusion, but invalid
thought because it is internally inconsistent or makes a simple error of
logic which invalidates itself.
> This list should be the last place to see the appearance of dogma.
Agreed. That is the exact reason people keep quoting logic, science,
methods, principles, references, evidence, and the like. Where you see
dogma, I see people trying to avoid dogma. It is breaking the
established rules of science to make your answer come out the way you
want that most people on this list would see as dogma.
If you are not using our Extropian methodology, what methodology are you
using to arrive at your "truth"?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:18 MST