From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 11:16:41 MDT
On Saturday, May 25, 2002, at 11:23 am, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> When, Harvey, you compare using the Principles in a way
>> comparable to scientific methodology, rules of logic, and
>> so on, I get very uneasy. Perhaps it's just your analogy.
>> Yes, the Principles can act a *little* bit like the rules
>> of logic, but the analogy is dangerous.
>
> Just why the analogy is dangerous, you don't say.
I think Max is concerned that the Extropian Principles are fine as
guidelines or a philosophy that summarize a group or goals or related
ideas. But they are not rigorously developed methodologies that can be
followed like a business plan or laboratory procedures. They may or may
not cover all bases, be consistent among themselves, or actually lead to
specific results. Whereas scientific methods and rules of logic are
generally recognized as being close to laws of physics, the Principles
are much less rigorous or precise. We use them to compare and contrast
ideas, but not to definitively prove or disprove any specific idea.
I think I need to back off from the word "tool" as being too strong,
since it is apparently confusing to some people. "Guidelines" would be
better, or even "philosophy" as it is. I think the Principles are more
accurately describes as "guidelines" or "philosophies" rather than
"tools", "proofs", "theorems", "methodologies", "procedures", etc. They
are more a wish list or goals of Extropians, but are certainly not
requirements, mandates or restrictions.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST