META: overposting (Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline: meme map)

[Hal Finney]

Zero Powers points out:
> There are some subjects over the years that have proven to have almost
> zero probability of getting anywhere:
>
> The transparent society/privacy rights debate
> The gun debate
> The "right" TH politics (democratic vs. republican vs. libertarian vs. etc.) and
> Theism vs. atheism

That's a good point, but I would suggest that maybe the problem isn't
the topics, it is our approach to discussing them.  I would love to
see us experiment with novel concepts for talking about controversial
subjects, rather than the same old back-and-forth that you can find on
any mailing list.  Frankly, I perceive that even the participants in these
debates are tired of them and can barely spark their own outrage anymore.

We need to think about what our goals are in debating these issues.  Is it
just our own entertainment?  If so, maybe what we are doing now is fine.

Are people trying to change the minds of others?  There, I think Zero is
right, there's not much chance of success.

Or perhaps, participants are hoping to improve their own understanding
of the issues, to test their ideas by seeking out the strongest possible
arguments against them, ready and willing to change opinions if the
evidence and arguments on the other side seem persuasive?

In that case, I think we could come up with better methods than just going
back and forth somewhat aimlessly.  It might be fun to have a formal
debate, a science court, a Delphi forum, set up an Idea Futures claim,
or try out some of the other exotic information consolidation techniques
that have been proposed over the years.

Hal