[ExI] Where Consensus Fails (Was Re: Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society)
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.
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:
> 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 More, Ph.D.
> Strategic Philosopher
> Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader
> The Proactionary Project
> Vice Chair, Humanity+
> Extropy Institute Founder
> max at maxmore.com
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat