So maybe what we need to do is to start a Society, a Bayesian Society,
for people who understand the theorem about disagreements. The founding
principle of the Society would be that you could not "agree to disagree".
You can only either say that someone is lying about his sincere desire
to reach the truth, or else you must come to agreement.
Assuming that claims of lying would be rare (hmmm, based on experience
here that may not be such a good assumption), the point of the Society
would be to reach agreement on all issues. Disagreement would not
be tolerated. When a member had new information he would bring it
to the attention of the Society and a new consensus would be reached.
All members would then be compelled to adopt that view. ("Compelled"
by logic - as Lewis Carroll wrote, logic would take them by the throat
and FORCE them to agree.)
It would be interesting to have a group where disagreements were
essentially forbidden. Talk about groupthink! Would it be a cult?
Would the members be brainwashed? Or would this be the ultimate in
rationality?
Being able to lie to others and to yourself on some things may be
important for success. But there are times and issues where you do want
to know the truth. A Society of this type could be helpful in providing
a source of truth, and for giving you mental practice in recognizing
when you are lying to yourself.
Hal
P.S. I see that there is already an International Society for Bayesian
Analysis. Perhaps they would be good candidates for members in this
more exclusive club.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:02 MDT