On 1/7/14, 3:04 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Could we profitably distinguish between:
(1) Not sharing the conclusions of the speaker.
(2) In sensitivity to relevant facts: reasoning with incorrect factual premises
(3) Reasoning illogically -- Clearly violating fundamental rules of logic. All
swans are white; this bird is a crow; this bird is white.
(4) Acting imprudently: i.e., acting in ways that are contrary to one's own
self interest.
And 5) introducing arbitrary premises that are not interesting to
everyone. For example, a preference for institutions like heterosexual
& monogamous marriage, a desire to not have people/animals starve to
death or experience predation/chronic disease, defining life/value as
having interesting boundaries in time/development or across species, or
asserting that certain social organizations be accommodated by the
government (e.g. tax breaks for charities and churches). All of these
things are just things human organizations have invented. Some of them
are reflected in law (ok, so what, laws can change). But they don't
necessarily have any first-principles truth behind them. War and
economic inequality endure for millennia -- if there were some universal
truth that said it was too expensive or inefficient for the species, it
would stop.
It's not that communication has fallen apart, it's that there is nothing
left to talk about.
X are alien and dangerous to the Y way of life.
"Save it, just keep it off my wave."
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
