[ExI] The answer to tireless stupidity

[Dan]

I don't disagree about the "silent audience" in any discussion, though I wonder 
if some of them aren't just immediately turned off by a continuous stream of 
emotional arguments anyhow.

Regarding facts, the problem here would be interpretation in many cases. Also, 
merely citing journal articles doesn't settle things in many cases. Think about 
those economists and market analysts pointing out that the housing bubble was 
going to burst and those who argued against them. The latter could've easily 
created chatbots citing all the relevant articles in peer-reviewed journals 
right up until the market unraveled in 2008. In a sense, it's all going to 
depend on what the silent audience takes for fact and reliable reasoning in the 
first place. (Of course, this is not an attack on chatbots per se, but merely to 
point out that the wider social context is important.)

Regarding a Creationist setting these up, well, aren't there already cheat 
sheets that Creationists use? Isn't there a book out called _How to Debate an 
Atheist_? Yes, this can be used for good or ill, and, like you, I'm more the 
optimist here. But the likely long-term outcome is probably not going to be the 
Dark Side is thwarted by chatbots, but that Dark Side chatbots make the more 
intelligent people less likely to take chat seriously. (In my opinion, that 
might actually be a big win. There are almost always more important things to 
do. :)

Regards,

Dan

From: Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 2:17:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] The answer to tireless stupidity

Very true.  However:

1) Might it be the case that those whose arguments are not based on facts have
more buttons to push?  If they can not be secure in letting the other side have 
the
last word, because they know everyone else can tell which side is the buffoon...

2) The point of the debate is more often to convince the silent audience.  If 
one
side keeps making emotional arguments, and the other side keeps rebutting by
linking to facts supported by outside sources, more people who witness the
debate will come away leaning toward the latter.

3) This is an interesting development as a political tool.  Like any technology, 
it
can be used for good or evil.  However, like many new technologies, those who we
view as "good" tend to be in a better position to use these tools, and thus will
probably make more effective use of them (at least in the next decade or two).
(In other words: try imagining an Extropian setting one of these up, then try to
imagine a creationist setting one of these up.  It's easier to imagine the 
former
case, no?)


On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

This is not necessarily a cure for anti-science nonsense or even nonsense. It
>could be used against anyone holding any view: simply wear them down. E.g.,
>someone here argues for Extropians or transhumanist views and someone else sets
>up a chatbot merely to keep pushing their buttons.
>
>


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20101103/a42a0845/attachment.html>