Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust)

From: [email-masked] ("Hal Finney")
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:54:19 -0800 (PST)

Robin writes:
> At 03:11 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote:
> >In the end, I have to weigh the probabilities.  Which is more likely:
> >that conventional science has made such a fundamental error, or that the
> >community of "lifter" hobbyists is fooling themselves?  And I have to
> >fall back on the position I have advocated before, which is to respect
> >the conventional wisdom of science.  Yes, scientists make mistakes.
> >But so do non-scientists!  And science has mechanisms for self-correction
> >which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community.
>
> I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists.
> Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really.  "Established
> academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better.
> Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor.  If most people who
> are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics reject a
> position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong.

You might have missed my paeans to science from last year,
<http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005888.html> and
<http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005911.html>.
>From the latter:

"Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific
consensus faithfully; you might even say, blindly.  The reason is because
our errors of rationality are so pervasive and seductive that we are
more likely to be wrong than is the scientific consensus.

"This is not an easy principle to follow!  It feels like an abdication of
responsibility, like an abandonment of critical thinking.  But when I look
within, these feelings do not come from the part of me that loves truth,
they come from the part of me that loves myself.  They are a manifestation
of ego.  They come from an emotional desire to be the master of my fate,
which means making my own decisions about what to believe and what not
to believe.  Delegating these matters to any outside social institution,
even one whose track record in approaching the truth is greater than
anything mankind has ever developed, goes against powerful mental
instincts.  Nevertheless I claim that this is what we have to try to do."

> But then comes the hard part: how can you ever justify disagreeing with
> most established experts on a topic?  Like cryonics for example.  Of course
> established experts make mistakes, but how can you ever know you've found one?

Cryonics is a hard case for me.  I have been signed up for 15 years now,
my whole family, my wife and two kids.  At this point, though, I am
much more doubtful about its chances of working.  It seems clear that
the consensus of experts on freezing tissue is that it is a terribly
damaging procedure.  And the consensus of experts on nanotech is that
the Drexlerian vision is not the most plausible course for the future.
Putting these together it seems doubtful that people being frozen today
will ever be revived with their memories and personalities intact.

On the other hand, I've gotten so used to the knowledge that this is
what will happen when I die, it is a real source of comfort to me.  Just
knowing that there is a possibility, even a remote one, of resurrection
and immortality is highly reassuring.  Cryonics plays the role, for me,
of religion, in terms of the emotional comfort and security it provides.
That makes it worthwhile even if it is objectively a long shot.  The idea
of being without that protection is disturbing and frightening.

Now, there might be alternatives.  I could become a Christian, accept
Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and hope for the same thing,
resurrection and immortality.  It would probably cost about the same,
maybe a little more if I got serious about it.  The question is, which is
more likely to lead to immortality: signing up for cryonics, or becoming
a Christian?

Obviously, most people would say that being Christian was more likely
to succeed.  But the general public is not necessarily expert on
the question.  I'm not sure who the best experts would be.  It would
be interesting to ask the community of non-religious cryobiologists
that question.  I honestly don't know what they would say.

Hal
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: "Brett Paatsch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:23:21 +1100

> that question.  I honestly don't know what they would say.

I wonder whether it would be possible for you, Robin, Damien and I
to agree on a the structure of a bet (like in idea futures) that would
judge the question "can cryonics work?" in such a way that we did
not disagree after it had been judged.  

Its seems that you and Robin hold that it might be feasible and Damien
(if I am not mistaken [1]) and I hold that it is not feasible. 

I think all of us would agree that the question is important. 

I wonder if it is the sort of question that we could formute into a bet.

All of us respect science. All of us respect logic. All of us speak 
English. All of us, I think would accept that science, logic and
language are the relevant domains and that there are English
speaking, scientifically literate and logical people that can judge
things in these domains under some circumstances. 

I wonder if we could formulate a bet and agree in advance on what
sort of third-party judging process would be involved in determining
"the truth". 

And if we could not, I wonder why not. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch

[1] http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014237.html

" Or doubts about continuous identity throughout the transfer--
`That's not Kenny, it's just a copy... and the bastards have *killed* 
Kenny!' (I'd go along with that one, usually.) "

---

From: Robin Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:52:00 -0500

At 10:54 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote:
> > >... science has mechanisms for self-correction

I did miss them.  Thanks for pointing them out.  There you write:

>Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific
>consensus faithfully; you might even say, blindly.  ... Delegating these
>matters to any outside social institution, even one whose track record in
>approaching the truth is greater than anything mankind has ever developed, ...

It seems to me that your arguments there would have the same force if you just
used the phrase "intellectual consensus" and dropped adding "science" 
modifiers.
The specific mechanism you praise is criticism, but this is mostly just what
happens to intellectual experts in general.

Now perhaps in some areas criticism is stronger than in others.  It is not
at all clear that this would be due to differing social institutions, rather
than to other differing factors.  But regardless of the exact reason for the
difference, should one prefer experts from the stronger-criticism 
areas?  You said:

>the minute you start deciding for yourself which scientists
>should be counted in the consensus and which shouldn't, you're making
>your own judgements.

Now isn't preferring high-criticism experts just another way to decide which
experts should be counted?   If the experts in some area think they do just
find with less criticism, why should you think they are wrong?

Robin Hanson  [email-masked]  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323