Actually that’s exactly what it is: pretty darn close to the textbook definition of Bayesian evidence. If you believe that rationalists do what they claim to do and modify their behavior in ways that are truth-seeking, and if objective studies show that rationalists have not significantly updated in the direction of veganism, that would in fact be Bayesian evidence against the truth of vegan arguments.
That doesn’t mean veganism is wrong. Maybe all the meat eaters on LW are in fact wrong, and there’s some sort of collective delusion preventing people from accepting and/or acting upon arguments for veganism. But an intellectually honest approach would be to recognize the possibility that you are wrong, as that is a result also consistent with the observed evidence.
I see now that it could be evidence. I do think its the second paragraph though. I have questioned myself very deeply on this from many angles and I still think I’m correct. I think there’s a collective delusion on acting upon arguments for veganism. The difference between veganism and other philosophies is you actually have to do something on a day to day basis unlike a lot of others.
I am very open to being wrong. I know exactly what information would have to be presented to change my opinion.
I’d like to hear the information what a lot of you would require for your minds to be changed as well!
So the crux of the matter for me is the consciousness of mammals and birds and some other nonhuman animals. As you go down the ‘complexity scale’ the consciousness of certain beings gets more debatable. It is less known and likely that fish are conscious compared to mammals. And it is less known and likely that insects are conscious compared to fish. However, there is quite the amount of evidence supporting consciousness in all mammals, birds, and some others based off evolution, physiology, and behavior.
One of the following would have to be proven for me to change my opinion:
1) That mammals and birds are not conscious, ie they do not feel subjectively nor can they suffer, or that their consciousness doesn’t mean anything in any meaningful way. Or maybe convincing me that if the N (N being how many animals are equal to a human) is an extremely large number, nonhuman animals should not be considered
2) That consciousness shouldn’t be a determining factor over moral consideration (I doubt this will change as this is my baseline morality).
I would continue being vegan for other reasons, but I would not try to convince others, unless the following were proven:
1) That factory farming does not actually contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases
2) That meat production could be more sustainable compared to plant farming to feed a growing population (I personally think food should be given to people, but that gets into a different political issue)
3) Along with 2), that meat consumption wasn’t contributing so highly to water scarcity
4) That it was perfectly healthy in average portions (This may already be proven)
I don’t think you are very open minded if you require those criteria for a change of opinion. You are basically arguing that even if I would reduce the total amount that animal suffering when I’m eating meat it would still be wrong for me to eat meat (The way it’s wrong to push the fat man on the tracks).
Well yes it would still be wrong. I’m talking about the act itself. You would be doing better than the majority of other people because you saved a bunch but then you’re stilling doing something wrong.
For instance, if you saved 100 people, its still wrong to kill one.
I think that’s what you were saying? If not, could you rephrase, because I don’t think I understood you perfectly.
Also, could you explain what information you have to get to change your mind?
Fair enough, and I believe you. My comment was as much for the other, lurking aspiring rationalists that might not have ingrained notions of Bayesian evidence yet.
Actually that’s exactly what it is: pretty darn close to the textbook definition of Bayesian evidence. If you believe that rationalists do what they claim to do and modify their behavior in ways that are truth-seeking, and if objective studies show that rationalists have not significantly updated in the direction of veganism, that would in fact be Bayesian evidence against the truth of vegan arguments.
That doesn’t mean veganism is wrong. Maybe all the meat eaters on LW are in fact wrong, and there’s some sort of collective delusion preventing people from accepting and/or acting upon arguments for veganism. But an intellectually honest approach would be to recognize the possibility that you are wrong, as that is a result also consistent with the observed evidence.
I see now that it could be evidence. I do think its the second paragraph though. I have questioned myself very deeply on this from many angles and I still think I’m correct. I think there’s a collective delusion on acting upon arguments for veganism. The difference between veganism and other philosophies is you actually have to do something on a day to day basis unlike a lot of others.
I am very open to being wrong. I know exactly what information would have to be presented to change my opinion.
Okay, I’m open to hearing what kind of information you would require.
I’d like to hear the information what a lot of you would require for your minds to be changed as well!
So the crux of the matter for me is the consciousness of mammals and birds and some other nonhuman animals. As you go down the ‘complexity scale’ the consciousness of certain beings gets more debatable. It is less known and likely that fish are conscious compared to mammals. And it is less known and likely that insects are conscious compared to fish. However, there is quite the amount of evidence supporting consciousness in all mammals, birds, and some others based off evolution, physiology, and behavior.
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
One of the following would have to be proven for me to change my opinion:
1) That mammals and birds are not conscious, ie they do not feel subjectively nor can they suffer, or that their consciousness doesn’t mean anything in any meaningful way. Or maybe convincing me that if the N (N being how many animals are equal to a human) is an extremely large number, nonhuman animals should not be considered
2) That consciousness shouldn’t be a determining factor over moral consideration (I doubt this will change as this is my baseline morality).
I would continue being vegan for other reasons, but I would not try to convince others, unless the following were proven:
1) That factory farming does not actually contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases
2) That meat production could be more sustainable compared to plant farming to feed a growing population (I personally think food should be given to people, but that gets into a different political issue)
3) Along with 2), that meat consumption wasn’t contributing so highly to water scarcity
4) That it was perfectly healthy in average portions (This may already be proven)
I don’t think you are very open minded if you require those criteria for a change of opinion. You are basically arguing that even if I would reduce the total amount that animal suffering when I’m eating meat it would still be wrong for me to eat meat (The way it’s wrong to push the fat man on the tracks).
Well yes it would still be wrong. I’m talking about the act itself. You would be doing better than the majority of other people because you saved a bunch but then you’re stilling doing something wrong.
For instance, if you saved 100 people, its still wrong to kill one.
I think that’s what you were saying? If not, could you rephrase, because I don’t think I understood you perfectly.
Also, could you explain what information you have to get to change your mind?
I’m open to changing my mind based on unexpected arguments.
Anything specific? That’s not really a crux… yet you criticize me for mine.
Fair enough, and I believe you. My comment was as much for the other, lurking aspiring rationalists that might not have ingrained notions of Bayesian evidence yet.