From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 08:35:34 MDT
Harvey writes
> >> - Which Extropian Principles are not useful as tools?
> >
> > Sorry, but I just don't think of them as tools, any more than
> > I would think of the Declaration of Independence as a tool.
> > Only cults treat documents that way, e.g., Chairman Mao's
> > Little Red Book.
>
> This is an interesting point for discussion, and possibly the root of
> our misunderstandings. I see the Extropian Principles, specifically
> under Rational Thought, as describing a methodology for evaluating new
> thoughts. I imagine a scientific methodology, rules of logic, and
> procedures for conducting rational thought. When someone proposes new
> ideas with which I disagree, I like to examine them with these tools. I
> look for flaws in their scientific methods. I look for flaws in their
> logic, specifically for classic logical fallacies. I look for
> deviations with other Extropian Principles as clues that maybe such
> ideas don't support the same ideas that we usually support. This is not
> meant to be a political acceptance test, but a methodology using tools.
Now we're getting somewhere. I never think like that. I never
consider "procedures for conducting rational thought". At last
we may be close to the fascinating difference that lies between
your way and my way of thinking: maybe I'm following much more
the British empirical tradition, and you're following more
of the Continental rational approach. But that's just a guess,
and it's far from explaining everything.
When you write "When someone proposes new ideas with which I
disagree, I like to examine them with these tools", it comes
off as very weird to me. As though you haven't been doing
that (or trying to do that) all your life. Or perhaps as if
it's something you turn off and on. Now someone standing
away from me and watching me think would undoubtedly describe
my behavior---and everyone else's here who posts---as critical
thinking. They then might further break it down to the (very
occasional) use of logic, the generation of hypotheses, and
the criticism of particular hypotheses.
1. I NEVER look for flaws in logic. They either jump out at
me or they don't. Moreover, it's *extremely* rare to find
a flaw in someone's logic. Extremely.
2. I NEVER line up the new conjecture with a list of the
Extropian Principles, and work down the list looking
for a deviation.
> You apparently have a totally different view of the Extropian
> Principles. I would love to hear detailed descriptions of how
> you see the Extropian Principles and how you use them. This
> would be great fodder for refining the Principles in the future.
Nah, it will be of no use whatsoever in refining those statements.
First, I doubt if I have any different view of the contents of
the principles, if that's what you mean, nor do I think that
anyone here does.
Second, I don't consciously "use" the principles any more than
I would consciously use, as I said, the Declaration of Independence
or other lofty inspirational material. What I do use, in the sense
of the word "use" that I guess you mean, are items such as Newton's
laws, or theorems in geometry. This is complicated, because, for
example, if you described the behavior of many people, e.g., police
detectives, you'd find them using, for example, Occam's Razor. But
most detectives have never heard of Occam's Razor. So how can they
use it? I think that you get my point.
Third, I use the Extropian Principles, if at all, to show people
what we believe, or sometimes, to see if my beliefs are changing.
You appear to be regarding the Extropian Principles as you might
the U. S. Constitution, or a body of law, except worse: You
sound as if from time to time you try to bring your thinking
more into line with the Principles. This is utterly and horribly
backwards. You can use them as inspirational guides if you wish,
but in no way can they replace your own thinking processes.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST