It’s like a low-information mind saying “I’m sick and tired of having AIDS, take your virus-destroying nanobot offer and go bother someone else!” I guess in that situation, you kind of scratch your head, and then say something like “OK, Darwin at work. Seeya.”
Well, see, currently you don’t have any empirical evidence that your nanobot cure won’t kill me swiftly and I suspect it would, so your apparent insistence that I inject myself with it right here on the spot sounds a lot like those black plague merchants to me. I would be in favor of testing the nanobot cure (assuming the nanobots aren’t self replicating), but please don’t start the testing with life humans.
You don’t get to make a claim and then place the burden on others to step up and shoot holes in it. Unlike people, bold claims start out guilty and remain so until proven innocent.
Instead, start by providing reasonably non-ambiguous ways to measure constructs like “properly-functioning”, “freedom” and “production”, then show research or analyses supporting the correlation you want to claim. (The short form of the foregoing: “citation needed”.)
Drop the second part of the claim which is pure emotional appeal and metaphor (“machinery”, “supreme”, “violent”), but otherwise content-free.
Assuming the correlation exists, also investigate alternative explanations, acknowledging when one of these cannot be ruled immediately out by argument or by observation, so that further tests are needed.
x
Well, see, currently you don’t have any empirical evidence that your nanobot cure won’t kill me swiftly and I suspect it would, so your apparent insistence that I inject myself with it right here on the spot sounds a lot like those black plague merchants to me. I would be in favor of testing the nanobot cure (assuming the nanobots aren’t self replicating), but please don’t start the testing with life humans.
x
You don’t get to make a claim and then place the burden on others to step up and shoot holes in it. Unlike people, bold claims start out guilty and remain so until proven innocent.
Instead, start by providing reasonably non-ambiguous ways to measure constructs like “properly-functioning”, “freedom” and “production”, then show research or analyses supporting the correlation you want to claim. (The short form of the foregoing: “citation needed”.)
Drop the second part of the claim which is pure emotional appeal and metaphor (“machinery”, “supreme”, “violent”), but otherwise content-free.
Assuming the correlation exists, also investigate alternative explanations, acknowledging when one of these cannot be ruled immediately out by argument or by observation, so that further tests are needed.