[extropy-chat] Science and Fools

[Hal Finney]

Robin writes:
> But I'll rephrase my argument to apply to your suggestion to only follow 
> the consensus of experts in fields where progress has been rapid over the 
> last few hundred years.  If you allow yourself to disagree with experts 
> from fields that have not made rapid progress, you are in essence saying 
> that you are some combination of more informed, better at analysis, and 
> more rational than they are.

That makes sense.  That would extend my rule about not disagreeing with
the scientific consensus, to not disagreeing with the consensus in other
fields.

Isn't there a danger that this broader view is more likely to run into
the situation where different fields have very different opinions about
some common subject matter?  Religion vs biology on evolution, liberalism
vs conservatism on politics?

> Consider topics like moral philosophy, epistemology, what Shakespeare 
> really meant, how to write a compelling novel, how to seduce the opposite 
> sex, how to get a team to work together, etc.  Maybe progress hasn't been 
> rapid enough in these areas over the centuries.  But that doesn't mean 
> there aren't people who know a lot about these subjects, people you could 
> stand to learn from.  How can you justify disagreeing with people who have 
> studied these topics in great detail, just because progress hasn't been 
> rapid?

Are you saying that there should be no difference in how you weight
the information about consensus in a field of study, based on how
much progress the field has made, and how accurate it has been in
the past?  Or how would you incorporate that kind of information?

Hal