Should we develop technology X? has a lot to do with: What do we expect the likely effects of the adoption of technology X happen to be?.
Thinking that the two questions have nothing to do with each other is highly problematic.
This is a forum where people regularly talk about terraforming mars and building dyson spheres even if they have little knowledge about the subject and I’m not allowed to speculate about cosmetic bodily upgrades?
I don’t think that the discussions about terraforming Mars on LW are done by people who haven’t thought about the existent technical options for terraforming Mars.
I’m not allowed to speculate about cosmetic bodily upgrades?
The problem is not that you speculate but that you ignore what we know as a society about the various interventions for the problem while you speculate.
Because you seem really overconfident in your ability to interpret other people’s writing.
If I say: “You don’t say what you mean with they” then there nothing overconfident about that statement.
It simply shows that I know of multiple possible interpretations, while you might or might not be conscious of them. If you are you could specify your argument.
Scientific thinking is to seek for disconfirmation of claims. The fact that vague claims can be read in a way that’s not disconfirmation doesn’t mean that it’s good to read them that way.
Being to vague to be wrong is bad.
Should we develop technology X?has a lot to do with:What do we expect the likely effects of the adoption of technology X happen to be?. Thinking that the two questions have nothing to do with each other is highly problematic.I don’t think that the discussions about terraforming Mars on LW are done by people who haven’t thought about the existent technical options for terraforming Mars.
The problem is not that you speculate but that you ignore what we know as a society about the various interventions for the problem while you speculate.
You don’t say what you mean with
they.They fit the criteria you stated in the opening post. Engaging with reality would help formulatting better criteria.
Saying the gym isn’t good because you can’t teach everyone calculus is not engaging with the issues of the gym.
If I say: “You don’t say what you mean with
they” then there nothing overconfident about that statement. It simply shows that I know of multiple possible interpretations, while you might or might not be conscious of them. If you are you could specify your argument.Scientific thinking is to seek for disconfirmation of claims. The fact that vague claims can be read in a way that’s not disconfirmation doesn’t mean that it’s good to read them that way. Being to vague to be wrong is bad.