[extropy-chat] Extropic Commandments

[John]

>Ah, but science does not do this. Science says that there will be a lunar eclipse next 
>Thursday, at exactly this time, viewed exactly from this range of locations. And these things 
>always take place as advertised when the math is done properly. That is what people need to >be taught - the hover-car salesman is not a scientist.

The hover-car example was perhaps an extreme one, but scientists do regularly make predictions that don't come through on time. It's, of coarse, not helped by the media 'hyping up' any prediction made to the point of suggesting it's a near certainty. They appear to have learnt for earlier scientists, who would make predictions closer to the hover-car example, that there's a good, embarassing story to be created by turning predictions into promises.

>I'm not sure I follow you here - what exactly is wrong with denying the possibility before even 
>looking at it? 

Because that is fundamentally not being scientific, fair or agnostic. To say outright "astrology is for morons" without bothering to check for any correlations it predicts puts the individual alongside the catholic alter kisser in my eyes.

>Don't you think it is more harmful to indoctrinate that there has to be something?

Certainly, but I have a hard time beliving it to be worse than indoctrinating people into overlooking evidence for things that conversely might be there. By creating a group of 'scientists' who deny things before even thinking about them, you're priming the religion v. science for a serious, unnecessary, war.

>The majority of religious people are the religions of their parent(s). What choice did they 
>have? 

Oh man, you do not even want to get me started on circumcision - or... ritualistic surgical torture of infants, as it would otherwise be known.

But on the same note, what choice do children have who are brought up by parents (and society) telling them that anything not immediately explained by science (usually at beginner level) is rubbish? For example, if you try suggesting these kinds of ideas to a lot of agnostic people, you won't leave the room without your ears hurting. Children need bringing up to appreciate that there are things they don't presently understand, and simply ruling the entirity of them to be null only slows down progress and creates the void in which new ideas can be ignored. I'm not suggesting we start distorting probability systems here in favour of religion, I'm suggesting we loose the unfounded bias that anything religious deserves a probability of 0.

>This is part of why I made my earlier remark about steering us away from the use of the 
>word "commandments" - 

I made a similar post about the commandments, that people will just think we're weird. Religious people probably won't be interested due to the lack of an immediate reward from our 'religion' and the scientists will think you're some crazy religious nutter.

>Religion isn't about making choices for yourself. Let's not sully our work here with it. 

Equally, let's not sully our work with bias either - is what I'm suggesting.

I think it's always important to remember that whilst people have access to science, a lot of people trust and rely on science in the same way that people trust and rely on religion to sort things out for them - not understanding how the VCR works, let alone a particle accelerator. The tablets you're giving them could be sugar. Of coarse, scientific tablets like antibiotics usually have the better effect, but in the mind of the person taking them, they're still sharing a lot of trust with you to make them better.

John



BullGuard Anti-virus has scanned this e-mail and found it clean.
Try BullGuard for free: www.bullguard.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060929/f4edd50a/attachment.html>