But with a double crux that is currently unfalsifiable there is no or little good discussion to be had. Take likelyhood of hard take off vs soft take off vs no take off. We can get some information from our current world but there is no slam dunk either of the dangerous ways (without a verified theory of intellgence), we can inch it one way or another.
It is worthwhile to think about what we should do before hard take off. It is also worthwhile to think about what we should do during soft takeoff in case we find ourselves in that world.
But with a double crux that is currently unfalsifiable there is no or little good discussion to be had.
I don’t think that’s true. For example, much of what social sciences do is debating unfalsifiable propositions.
In particular, “unfalsifiable” does not mean that the weight of the evidence couldn’t be more on one side than the other. If you are not going to discuss questions for which there is “no slam dunk”, what are you going to discuss? Whether water is wet?
It is worthwhile to think about what we should do before hard take off. It is also worthwhile to think about what we should do during soft takeoff
Sure, but why is that a problem? Discussing conditional scenarios is a very commonplace activity.
But with a double crux that is currently unfalsifiable there is no or little good discussion to be had. Take likelyhood of hard take off vs soft take off vs no take off. We can get some information from our current world but there is no slam dunk either of the dangerous ways (without a verified theory of intellgence), we can inch it one way or another.
It is worthwhile to think about what we should do before hard take off. It is also worthwhile to think about what we should do during soft takeoff in case we find ourselves in that world.
I don’t think that’s true. For example, much of what social sciences do is debating unfalsifiable propositions.
In particular, “unfalsifiable” does not mean that the weight of the evidence couldn’t be more on one side than the other. If you are not going to discuss questions for which there is “no slam dunk”, what are you going to discuss? Whether water is wet?
Sure, but why is that a problem? Discussing conditional scenarios is a very commonplace activity.