[ExI] Where Consensus Fails (Was Re: Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society)

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Oct 9 21:44:36 UTC 2010


Thanks for pointing the 'bull shit' uselessness out and mentioning this 
great article "where-consensus-fails" which shows the many problems of 
measuring for consensus in traditional old fashioned ways.

Spike and Others argued over whether it was OK to have strong opinions 
on such things?  Of course it is OK to have strong opinions of things, 
including what is more important, and so on.  What would really help 
(especially to help when people, especially the majority, have immoral 
or incorrect value judgments which need correcting) is simply better 
communication, as in our ability to know just what everyone (and the 
experts - some are better than others) believes and why (i.e. what camp 
they are in, without having to listen to them for days).  And a system 
to help those that know the majority is wrong, to collaboratively work 
together to first know why the majority is wrong and to work 
collaboratively to educate everyone about such, or at a very minimum, 
more effectively communicate that they believe such to be the case and  why.

And of course, scientific consensus is just that, a rigorous measure of 
what the moral or scientific experts believe.  It is certainly not 
absolute truth, as scientific consensus constantly fluctuates.  What is 
critically important is rigorously measuring this as it happens so that 
nobodies 'bull shit' statement can doubt any such existence of consensus 
or what the experts currently agree on.

The moral expert and scientific consensus survey system being developed 
at canonizer.com has none of the problem mentioned in the "where 
consensus fails" article.  You know concisely exactly what all 
participators believe or want to say and why, Just by knowing what camp 
they are in, without having to read and tally testimonials from each and 
every participant.  And, as new scientific data comes in, falsifying 
various theories, you can know such is definitively being falsified to 
the degree people are abandoning finally falsified camps.

An example topic being the very controversial theories of consciousness 
field.  Everyone thinks that anyone that makes any claims in this 
theoretical field will result in nothing but gazillions of people 
yelling "bullshit" to all such.  Everyone falsely thinks there is no 
expert consensus at all, as the tentative early surprising results 
forming around the expert consensus "Representational Qualia Theory" 
camp (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 ) is starting to  show.

Already leading experts such as Lehar, Haeroff, Chalmers, Edwards... are 
participating, and as this survey becomes every more comprehensive, it 
is becoming ever more clear that we are already well on our way to 
achieving a scientific consensus around a concise description what the 
subjective mind is and how it works - with only a few minor details or 
competing predictions (as in functional property dualism vs material 
property dualism?) of just what qualia are to be finally demonstrated or 
falsified by science.  No other theory by anyone has yet to form any 
more consensus than one or two individuals in comparison to 
"Representational  Qualia Theory" which continues to increase its lead 
of more than half of all participators supporting it.  Hopefully, now 
that everyone can know, definitively, how much consensus there is, 
people will finally realize what it means to 'eff the ineffable' which I 
believe will finally lead to the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

It's all a matter of good, concise, and quantitative communication, so 
the signal, when it is there, can definitively stand out sooner from all 
the many yelling 'bull shit' recursively add infinitem, and when it 
isn't there, so we can at least easily know where everyone currently 
stands and why till science proves some of us wrong.

Brent Allsop

On 10/9/2010 12:56 PM, Max More wrote:
>> The LACK of a scientific consensus is only perceived by a scientifically
>> illiterate, politically motivated group that will use whatever dirty
>> tricks it can to pervert the course of normal scientific inquiry.
>> Or:  The jury is "only about 8-4 on this"?  Bullshit.
> Bullshit to your bullshit. (There, see how helpful that kind of 
> response is.)
> More specifically, and for instance:
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/
> I'm currently reading about the great flaws in another "consensus", 
> this one to do with the causes of obesity and diet-related health 
> issues: Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories. One emblem of this 
> is the Government's official Food Guide Pyramid -- another damaging 
> area of flawed official position.
> Max
> -------------------------------------
> Max More, Ph.D.
> Strategic Philosopher
> Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader
> The Proactionary Project
> Vice Chair, Humanity+
> Extropy Institute Founder
> www.maxmore.com
> max at maxmore.com
> -------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list