Claim 3: Splitting a discussion list and posting summaries of the sub lists to the parent will allow discussion to continue whilst still providing an overall view
I disagree. Having two bubbles sitting there stewing in their own juices is not discussion and posting summaries up-list won’t help because the people from the two bubbles are still not talking to each other. For a fruitful discussion you need cross-pollination, that is, sex, that is, a certain amount of fuckery. Abstinence, of course, is the ultimate contraceptive so by keeping the two parties separated all that you’ll achieve is that in a while the update summaries from both will be identical and will state “We are still right and they are still wrong”.
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.
Claim 3: Splitting a discussion list and posting summaries of the sub lists to the parent will allow discussion to continue whilst still providing an overall view
I disagree. Having two bubbles sitting there stewing in their own juices is not discussion and posting summaries up-list won’t help because the people from the two bubbles are still not talking to each other. For a fruitful discussion you need cross-pollination, that is, sex, that is, a certain amount of fuckery. Abstinence, of course, is the ultimate contraceptive so by keeping the two parties separated all that you’ll achieve is that in a while the update summaries from both will be identical and will state “We are still right and they are still wrong”.
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.