“Out of all attempts at significant technological gain in a civilization, few will succeed. We’re a civilization. Therefore, ours probably won’t advance.”
You use anthropic reasoning to get the claim “few will succeed”, which is a conclusion, not a premise.
“Few will succeed” is an observation, not a premise, though perhaps I should have said, “Few have been observed to succeed”.
What is unjustified is the conclusion that ours will not have some success that makes up for the all the other failures, which is why I think Katja_Grace’s reasoning (and its reductios) fails.
It’s not an observation. It’s an inference for which you need the anthropic principle. “Few have succeeded so far” is an observation. You’d need to observe the future to observe “Few will succeed”.
You use anthropic reasoning to get the claim “few will succeed”, which is a conclusion, not a premise.
“Few will succeed” is an observation, not a premise, though perhaps I should have said, “Few have been observed to succeed”.
What is unjustified is the conclusion that ours will not have some success that makes up for the all the other failures, which is why I think Katja_Grace’s reasoning (and its reductios) fails.
It’s not an observation. It’s an inference for which you need the anthropic principle. “Few have succeeded so far” is an observation. You’d need to observe the future to observe “Few will succeed”.