From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 15 1999 - 13:11:43 MST
Billy Brown wrote:
>> The related thing that most strikes me is the unfortunate
>> lack of paper-length contributions on the topics which
>> frequently appear on this list. ... If you only
>> ever see short contributions on a topic, you might
>> reasonably infer that ... the topic doesn't withstand
>> careful scrutiny; those people who tried to write
>> longer analyses realized it's all bunk and gave up.
>
>Part of the problem is the nature of the topics we discuss. Honestly, how
>many of us are qualified to write a rigorous analysis of a topic that spans
>half a dozen disciplines? A detailed justification of any particular
>Singularity scenario, for example, requires an understanding of every field
>of technology you want to take into account, plus a bit of political
>science, history and economics.
I think this is setting too high a standard. If you are qualified
to write informative posts on a topic, you are qualified to write
an informative paper on the topic. You need just consider the same
issues you would in a post, but more carefully and thoughtfully.
The goal is relative, not absolute: to improve our understanding of the topic.
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar FAX: 510-643-8614
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 510-643-1884
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:50 MST