[ExI] How to make progress (was Re: Why do political and economic leaders deny Peak Oil and Climate Change?)

[Eugen Leitl]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:21:58PM -0600, Brent Allsop wrote:

> You indicated knowing who the experts is the problem.  But at
> Canonizer.com it isn't.  At Canonizer.com anyone can pick any

I have some bad news for you: the world is a big place,
rife with established structures and processes, and it won't
be beating down a path to your door unless your better
mousetrap is of truly exceptional quality. I don't have 
a diplomatic way of saying that your invention sucks.
It might be fixable, but it's not my job of figuring 
out how.

> experts they trust, by selecting the Canonizer algorithm on the side
> bar.  So far, the most popular 'expert' algorithms are peer ranking
> ones, where peers rank each other.  And, again, when you're
> attempting to communicate to anyone, or any group, you work from
> their chosen experts, whatever that is.

The whole premise is broken.
 
> You also asked:
> 
> Have you never ever wondered why your pet project, or LessWrong never
> went anywhere?
> 
> 
> Well, it's not wikipedia, YET.  But if you could see what it is
> becoming from where I'm sitting, you'd laugh at this.  Remember, if
> you want to communicate successfully, you just need to work from
> your targets perspective.  I admit there isn't enough evidence to
> prove to you it's capabilities, but it's making progress in that

I've looked. There's very little there, and what is is
of appalling quality. It already starts of poor quality
of the seed content.

> direction, and my prediction is that it will eventually convince
> you.  As I indicated earlier, at the very minimum it has stopped the
> hateful conversations, like this one, where everyone repeated their

You don't know what a hateful conversation really is.
I'm blunt and abrasive, but I'm not hateful.

> POV, infinitely, on consciousness, and everyone eventually started
> acusing the others as Hitler, and so on.

Whoosh.
 
> Now, everyone that participates very much enjoys the conversation is
> their understand is light years ahead of what it was when we were
> all stuck with infinite YES!!  NO!! YES!..   Instead of infinitely
> repeating your position, you just say your' in camp
> http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/36 and everyone knows exactly what

No. You publish in peer reviewed journals and go to conferences.
Statements of belief are useless. Online arguments are largely
useless.

> you believe, how many experts agree, and how many don't, along with
> concise and quantitative descriptions of why.  Nobody ever needs to
> give up, as your camp, and everyone that agrees, is collaboratively
> continued to be developed.  If anyone berings any new ideas, or new

Look at the TOD track record. It has changed many people's lives.

> scientific evidence to the table, it get's canonized, and most
> importantly of all, you get a rigorous measure of just how good the
> information by know how many new people it convinces.  If you want

Your metric is entirely broken. Numbers don't indicate
consensus.

> to know what the state of the art of the conversation is, you can
> see a nice concise and quantitative summary of what all 50
> participators (including several world class experts like Chalmers,
> Lehar...) believe - real time. (Note:  some have abandoned their now

You see, there's the problem: they're experts in an area that 
has no relevance. It speaks volumes that canonizer's focus
is on philosophy.

> falsified camps, due to real experimental data.)    Good luck
> finding anything like that, in all the work you and everyone has put
> into this conversation, or in anything like Less Wrong.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of this 
conversation.
 
> 
> You asked what my top priorities are.  See my canonized list:
> 
> http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/120/8

"Public enemy number one is, was, and ever shall be germs, that is virus 
and bacterial pathogens; this is no joke because we may be heading back 
into a world without antibiotics."

"Public enemy number two is ocean acidification - the current unremitting 
trend of decrease in pH of the world's oceans due to the oceans absorbing 
about 30 per cent of the carbon dioxide that humans have been putting into 
the atmosphere. It is possible that the decreasing pH of the ocean will 
kill off all corals by the year 2050 - less than 40 years from now. It 
is also possible that the change from the ocean's normal slightly alkaline 
state to slightly acidic may kill off all significant surviving stocks of 
wild sea fish by 2100. That would mean no more fish and chips .... ever!"

"Public enemy number three is global warming. By now a very well publicised 
change in average mid day temperature and also possibly an increased maximum 
temperature, which is probably due at least in significant part to the 
additional CO2 we have been putting into the atmosphere."

"Public enemy number four is bureaucracy. You may be tempted to laugh at 
this idea but, after 25 years working at an Australian Government agency, 
I have no doubt that bureaucratic method is not adequate to the task of 
steering us humans out of the environmental disaster we have aimed 
ourselves toward. Big business also, I believe, is not up to the task 
either due once again to the bureaucratic nature of large corporate 
entities, and also to their propensity to assess the world and human 
values in terms of money profit only."

I'll just let that stand uncommented.
 
> What do you mean when you said: "I used to communicate concisely and
> quantitatively."?

I did that when I thought it would make a difference. I'm both
stupid *and* stubborn, so sue me.
 
> Finally, you s aid:
> 
> "I know why you hate what I'm saying. You think I'm the party who's
> putting everything in jeopardy. Unfortunately, it's exactly the
> other way round. Wrong goals kill."
> 
> 
> I completely agree with this, and the facts of the matter of much of
> what you say.  It's all about quantity and priorities.   I
> completely agree that you could have something critically important

If you need me to tell you're what is critically important then
you've demonstrated an epic chain of failures. Further prognosis
likely isn't good. As your attorney, I recommend to go offline
and try heavy immersion in primary literature. Maybe pick up
a few online courses, and do a stint in a well-mentored lab.

> to us all.  Most everything you are saying is just driving me away
> from agreeing with you.  Especially when you say things like there

If I had many people agree with me I'd knew I'd be dead wrong,
and need to radically change the whole approach.

> is a consensus.  IF that were true, you should be able to start to
> canonize things, and such evidence would start to show up.  In fact,
> can you point to any expert I might recognize. that supports this

How would you, a non-expert, tell an expert from a kook?

> assertion?  Seems to me there is far less evidence of any expert
> support for "peek oil" than for "global warming", and I very much

If you're actively running away from the evidence, I can't help you.

> doubt their claims of 'expert consensus'.

Here's news: you don't matter. This list doesn't matter.
Even if a large fraction of the population would be doing the
right thing it will only postpone the reckoning a little.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130910/5afc7ed3/attachment.bin>