From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 22:50:38 MDT
--> Harvey Newstrom
> >>> Which is an ethical/moral question to be decided on by societal
> >> consensus. And the answer could be any old thing.
> >>>
> >> How do you get this "societal consensus"? How do you choose?
> >> Can we start with how each chooses and why?
> >
> > Unfortunately, you don't choose. Unless you create your society out of
> > whole
> > cloth and new AIs, I guess. It's a big fight, shouting match, and mess.
>
> Maybe this is why conversations with you are going nowhere. I don't
> think most extropians are going to want to participate in this
> methodology for future building. It seems so contrary to most of our
> goals, principles and interests.
Since we don't have the tools to model the way in which your efforts effect
society, you either wait until the tools exist or forge forward into the
mess doing what your best educated guess says is going to work.
> > But anyhow; I find the discussion of the way in which societies agree on
> > "facts" more interesting than the way in which societies build ethics
> > on top of those "facts."
>
> At the risk of sounding dogmatic again, this society is the Extropians
> List. We use the scientific method, logical rules and rational thinking
> to determine "facts". We don't just argue or vote ourselves into a
> consensus. We believe that claims require evidence, and extraordinary
> claims require extraordinary evidence. We believe that theories should
> predict observations. We believe that theories need to be testable or
> falsifiable to determine their veracity. Merely voting, agreeing, or
> deciding on what should be is not part of this society's normal
> functioning.
<upperclass>
"This is the Extropians List, young man. We don't do things that way here."
</upperclass>
Heh.
But anyway, to issue the same clarification I made to Samantha, there are
two sorts of things that are commonly (shoddily) referred to as facts. One
would be the measurable, scientific sort of fact (speed of light), the other
is the "fact" that's arrived at by societal consensus -- e.g. what is human,
what isn't human. In the first case, it's a given. Second case, it's agreed
on. I'm talking about the second sort. Suggestions on a better naming
convention taken.
While I shouldn't feel obliged by the self-appointed gatekeepers to issue a
statement on my conformism with the scientific method, yes, I subscribe to
an objectivist/scientific method view of the world.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST