From: David Lubkin (extropy@unreasonable.com)
Date: Thu Apr 25 2002 - 11:49:55 MDT
At 01:10 AM 4/25/2002 -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>No, it's not. That someone makes an assertion does not imply that it is
>>worthy of investigation, response, or rebuttal. That the assertion has
>>significant consequences if it is true does not change this.
>
>Huh? It was stated that the only important thing was wheter there is good
>enough evidence from this person you branded a loon about this
>matter. There is no arguing with that. Even someone who often acts like
>a loon may ocassionally have a valid case.
>>Because part of the evidence is who is the messenger and what credibility
>>they have. If someone with a strong reputation for intellectual honesty,
>>integrity, objectivity, past relevant accomplishment, analytical skills,
>>pertinent expertise, etc., says something interesting, it's worthy of
>>attention. As these factors are removed, and negative factors are added,
>>their assertions become less and less worthy of consideration.
>
>The messenger is NOT the evidence. So in short, from the above, if
>someone has already impressed you as a reasonable human being his evidence
>is better than the same evidence presented by someone who has not so
>impressed you? Where is the objectivity in that?
I've raised two distinct concerns that have been discussed by others on the
list in the past.
The first is that, at least as long as we're stuck in meat bodies, we have
to be selective in how we use our time. Not all ideas are worth
consideration and not all messengers are worth listening to, because the
time we spend on them is at the expense of something else. We all,
naturally and appropriately, prejudge ideas and messengers. You didn't
skip Kurzweil's talk at EXTRO-5 to listen to a disheveled man in the
parking lot tell you about the Illuminati.
We also constantly rely on others to prejudge for us, from spam filters to
Roger Ebert to Dun & Bradstreet.
Occasionally we or they will be wrong. We know this, and build mechanisms
to correct the filters.
The second is that, when you are considering someone's evidence, whether in
conversation, in court, or in a scientific journal, you usually cannot (or
choose not to) independently verify their every contention. The reputation
that the messenger has with you provides a necessary weighting factor. I
see a scale:
(1) Assume that the evidence proffered is more reliable than if you had
obtained it yourself.
(2) Assume that the evidence is as reliable as if you had obtained it
yourself.
(3) The evidence is probably ok, but verify it anyway.
(4) The evidence is probably unreliable; scrutinize it closely.
(5) Assume the evidence is invalid.
I trust that my dentist is more competent than I am to assess whether I
have a cavity, and I trust his integrity not to fake evidence. I am more
skeptical when my auto mechanic tells me I need a new transmission. I
assume that you are as competent as I to find out when the library closes,
and have no motive to lie; I will verify the facts myself when my
six-year-old nephew tells me. If Erich Von Daniken writes a new sequel to
Chariot of the Gods, I can safely presume that it will not contain valid
evidence of alien visitation.
>Just because something is monstrous to even consider as possible does not
>mean it is acceptable to automatically dismiss and label any who consider
>it or advocate it as true as a "loon".
Agreed. I dismissed the gentleman in question as a "loon" not for any one
thing alone. All the separate issues I raised together led to that conclusion.
-- David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:39 MST