From: Stirling Westrup (sti@cam.org)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 17:29:12 MDT
Robin Hanson wrote:
> I asked:
> >Under standard accounts, decisions are made by combining positions
> >on values and beliefs about facts. ... So which is it, do our
> >disagreements with opponents tend to be more about values, or more
> >about facts?
>
> Many people here don't seem to accept the standard account of decisions.
> John Clark is the only one who gave a straight answer: "Values I think."
I previously ignored the question, not because I don't have an answer, but
because I've usually discovered difficulties due to a failure to agree on
what are facts and what are values. In particular, I hold that certain
things are facts, and others claim that they are values, which they don't
adhere to. What category do I put such things in?
As an example, I will state that there is no reason to believe that there
is any fundamental limit to the human lifespan if assisted by appropriate
technology. This is so clearly a fact to me, that I have trouble figuring
out how to reply to someone who holds that it is merely part of my value
system, and that they have different values.
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:47 MST