From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 14 1998 - 21:21:15 MDT
Nick B. writes:
>> I reread Leslies book on this issue last night, and object to
>> putting bios and postbios into the same ref class in exactly the way
>> that Leslie envisions one might object:
>>
>> It might perhaps be complained that making the reference class into
>> humans-after-splitting-away-from-Neanderthals would be coming too
>> near to imitating the man who makes his reference class into
>> people-born-as-late-as-himself-or-later [p. 261, The End of the World]
>
>The complaint that Leslie is refering to is that the reference class
>should not be unduely *narrowed*, that it would be wrong to leave out
>the pre-Neanderthal people. What you are saying is that the reference
>class should not be *widened* to include postbios. So why do you say
>that you object in exactly the same way as Leslie envisions? As far
>as I know, Leslie has never considered ruling out postbios from the
>reference class on the ground that they would be too different.
I'm saying that having a relatively narrow/strict cut in early times and a
relatively wide/generous cut in later times constitutes a bias, which
will make us earlier in the rank order than an unbiased reference class.
This bias will make the total population seem smaller than otherwise.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:28 MST