[ExI] Conversational rules (and metaconversational games)
pharos at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 10:41:25 UTC 2011
2011/9/28 Amon Zero wrote:
> Now I'm curious as to whether there have ever been significant discussions
> of "meta" rules for conversation or investigation of ideas? Given that most
> (if not all) lists eventually develop perennial thematic "ruts", I wonder if
> any deep thought has been applied to how to handle such things?
It is annoying for experts in a subject that they have studied for
years when the whole subject is casually dismissed. Simplistic
arguments are assumed correct when the experts have read whole books
discussing all the ramifications of similar arguments.
The weakness here is that it means that 'ordinary' people can't
discuss Relativity without at least a university course behind them,
or discuss climate change without studying climatology for years, or
discuss angels on the head of a pin without a theology degree.
Theology - rubbish, FTL - Impossible, PSI - bullshit, Libertarianism -
never work,..... See, I've solved all these arguments. That didn't
take long, did it? ;)
More information about the extropy-chat