Depends on what connotations of relgion you mean. But ensuring ulturally that the scientific process doesn’t stop—and provides value by forming a religion-like commuity around it does sound like a viable way.
Bastide and Fabbri came to the conclusion that the most durable thing that humanity has ever made is culture: religion, folklore, belief systems. They may morph over time, but an essential message can get pulled through over millennia.
Not a good analogy. Something that works and reliably gives its users comparative advantage (such as science) shouldn’t need a mechanism to keep alive an “essential message”. Institutions to teach it, and to keep it clean, yes: but those are universities, not religions.
And universities, once established, also tend to be extremely durable. They just haven’t been around for thousands of years yet. But while they have, many more newly-founded religions than universities have died.
Universities are not a good example of the institutions he was talking about. Durability isn’t the only important factor. One of the main strengths of religious institutions is their sheer pervasiveness; by inserting itself into every facet of life, religion ensures that its disciples can’t stray too far from the path without being reminded of it. Universities, sadly, are not capable of this level of involvement in the lives of communities or individuals.
In this case, rationality should seek to emulate religion by creating institutions and thus a lifestyle that makes its ideas pervasive. For example, if you could attend weekly lectures at your local “rationality church” or have those better at the art of rationality available to guide you the way priests guide Christians, becoming and staying a rationalist would be much easier and thus more accessible to the populace. This already sort of happens through the internet and meetups, but what religion has is a proven formula that builds communities around ideas, and we can definitely learn from it.
One of the main strengths of religious institutions is their sheer pervasiveness; by inserting itself into every facet of life, religion ensures that its disciples can’t stray too far from the path without being reminded of it.
That’s called totalitarianism, by the way. Not many people consider it to be a good thing.
Not necessarily. It’s totalitarianism if said institutions do the ensuring through force, and without the consent of the disciples. However, by choosing to belong to a religious community, people choose to have institutions and members of the community remind them of the religious values.
I made no mention of control. Simply being present in all aspects of life is not the same as having control over all aspects of life. For example, if you live in a western society it’s extremely probable that marketing and advertising are present in many aspects of your life, but I don’t think either of us would say that the simple fact of their presence gives the marketers control over those aspects of your life.
Well, yes, but I think that in practice living within a religious community imposes a lot of pressure to conform to the religious norms. Some of that pressure is social (from not being invited to the right cocktail parties to outright shunning) and some can be direct and violent. I recall that the haredim are not above throwing stones at cars on a Saturday...
I agree that this is the case in some religious communities, and that this is not necessarily the direction a rationalist community should go. (On the other hand, I have a hard time agreeing with the proposition that social pressure in favor of rationality is a bad thing, but I have yet to reach a definite conclusion on the subject.) However, I happen to be familiar with several religious communities where direct and violent pressure to conform is not the case, and it is those communities I wish to emulate.
I feel that the cohesiveness of a community and its effectiveness at maintaining its norms is directly and strongly correlated to the disincentives that it provides for deviating from these norms. Just presence of symbols is not enough.
Of course things like self-selection and evaporative cooling are major factors as well.
Based on admittedly anecdotal evidence I’m inclined believe this correlation, but I think we’re interpreting its existence differently. In my view, by becoming more “religious” and providing more disincentives for deviating from norms, we can increase our cohesiveness and effectiveness, but this should only be done up to a point, that point being, as far as I can tell, where we as a community can no longer tolerate the disincentives. This view is based on my value judgment that not all disincentives for deviating from norms I find acceptable or admirable are unacceptable, but rather too many disincentives or those that are too extreme are unacceptable.
Be careful about keeping descriptive and normative separate.
The correlation that we are talking about is descriptive and has to do with observable reality. What you think should be done and how is normative and has to do with your value judgments.
My value judgment about disincentives still stands, though. Religious communities have a framework for applying social and other disincentives (and incentives) in order to achieve their desired result. That framework could be useful if adapted to the purpose of promoting rationality.
I’m not sure that science ‘itself’ (i.e. without cultural aspects shared with religion) “reliably gives its users comparative advantage”. The advantage for the individual is quite small—if not negative in some cases. It is only by the society embracing science that it gains the society at large a large advantage.
Now that we have science we individuals may find that ‘doing’ science is to our individual disadvatage and abstain from it (freerider-wise).
If on the other hand you see science as a set of cultural rules and customs—and your university example points in that direction—then science already has lots in common with religion. Why not build on that?
I’m not talking about benefits to individuals as much as benefits to companies and societies. I believe that of two otherwise very similar companies and societies, if one does R&D and the other doesn’t, the one that does will very reliably outcompete the other in the long term.
I’m all for developing non-superstitious alternatives to religion, and I do think community-building is a vital part of that. But to be inside that reference class must give rise to many associations, not all of which are fortunate. In particular, it renders the “creed” a matter of subjective belief and feeling. I wouldn’t want the Sequences to be seen that way. The creed your imagined community should center around would have to be something compatible with them, yet distinct from them. Humanism is one of the more obvious possibilities.
Free-riding can happen among societies too. It is quite possible that a society doing little R&D itself but applying R&D results from other societies outcompetes those. I hear this is happening in the form that some asian countries learn from the west without investing as much.
I don’t know if those examples show ‘outcompeting’. The overall picture of various countries doesn’t show late growers exceeding the absolute wealth of early growers (maybe one would predict this based on cultural/human-capital/institution theories?).
As far as Western industrialization went, the big players in roughly chronological order were the UK, Netherlands, France, USA, & Austria/Germany. It seems fair to call them the ‘innovators’, and you seem to have only East Asian countries in mind, so I’ll look at just China/Taiwan/Korea (South, but not North)/Japan/Hong Kong (which I think is all of them) as ‘imitators’.
Consider their wealth (GDP PPP per capita); in descending order it goes: United States (10), Hong Kong (10), Netherlands/Belgium (13/24), Austria/Germany (16/17), Taiwan (22), France (26), Japan (27), UK (28), South Korea (30), and 60 places way down the list is China (89).
How badly are they outcompeted? Well, South Korea & China beat none of them, Japan just barely edges out the UK (which we might attribute to socialist decay), Taiwan is past France & the UK but is pretty small, and Hong Kong is even more exceptional (tiny & UK-founded). In general, it seems to be better to be an ‘innovator’ than a (successful) ‘imitator’.
If I drop Hong Kong as too tiny and exceptional, the permutations seem to be going in the direction of innovation being better too:
R> countries <- data.frame(PPP=c( 10, 10, 13, 24, 16, 17, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 89),
Innovator=c(TRUE, FALSE, TRUE, TRUE, TRUE, TRUE, FALSE, TRUE, FALSE, TRUE, FALSE, FALSE))
R> wilcox.test(PPP ~ Innovator, data=countries)
Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction
data: PPP by Innovator
W = 24.5, p-value = 0.2903
At least, if the East Asians are ‘outcompeting’, it doesn’t look like it’s clearly happened yet.
If you’re talking about copycats reducing the distance they lag behind innovators, at a reduced cost relative to what the innovators invested into building that distance, those are good examples.
It’s hard to do country comparisons because of all the confounders. But for particular industries, it’s easy to find examples.
The Japanese automobile industry clearly outcompeted the US one during the late 80s and the 90s, for example. Or look at where all the semiconductors are produced.
This is not to say that being a copycat is better than being an innovator—just that the first-mover advantage sometimes is significant and sometimes is not.
On what basis do you consider the Japanese automobile industry not engaging in research and innovation?
For the data I can find Japan had in 1984 62k granted patents while the US had 67k Given that the US had roughly twice the population, Japan might have outcompeted the US because of more innovation.
On what basis do you consider the Japanese automobile industry not engaging in research and innovation?
You twist my words—I said nothing like this.
The Japanese cars gained market share in the US not because they were more technologically advanced. Their primary advantage was that they were more reliable, mostly as a function of better manufacturing practices.
As far as I remember it was more a function of the assembly workers tightening up the nuts with the correct torque and not dropping engine blocks on the floor before installing them. I am not sure better quality control counts as “higher sophistication” in this context.
Reducing the distance they lag behind by copy-catting is outcompeting—in the relative sense. Otherwise they wouldn’t catch up but fall further behind. That they didn’t start out at the same level could be considered more historical chance than missing ability.
Depends on what connotations of relgion you mean. But ensuring ulturally that the scientific process doesn’t stop—and provides value by forming a religion-like commuity around it does sound like a viable way.
Reminds me of the approach proposed for warning of radioactive waste dumps for 10000 years:
Not a good analogy. Something that works and reliably gives its users comparative advantage (such as science) shouldn’t need a mechanism to keep alive an “essential message”. Institutions to teach it, and to keep it clean, yes: but those are universities, not religions.
And universities, once established, also tend to be extremely durable. They just haven’t been around for thousands of years yet. But while they have, many more newly-founded religions than universities have died.
Universities are not a good example of the institutions he was talking about. Durability isn’t the only important factor. One of the main strengths of religious institutions is their sheer pervasiveness; by inserting itself into every facet of life, religion ensures that its disciples can’t stray too far from the path without being reminded of it. Universities, sadly, are not capable of this level of involvement in the lives of communities or individuals.
In this case, rationality should seek to emulate religion by creating institutions and thus a lifestyle that makes its ideas pervasive. For example, if you could attend weekly lectures at your local “rationality church” or have those better at the art of rationality available to guide you the way priests guide Christians, becoming and staying a rationalist would be much easier and thus more accessible to the populace. This already sort of happens through the internet and meetups, but what religion has is a proven formula that builds communities around ideas, and we can definitely learn from it.
That’s called totalitarianism, by the way. Not many people consider it to be a good thing.
Not necessarily. It’s totalitarianism if said institutions do the ensuring through force, and without the consent of the disciples. However, by choosing to belong to a religious community, people choose to have institutions and members of the community remind them of the religious values.
The mark of totalitarianism is not force, but rather complete control over all aspects of life.
“He loved Big Brother”.
I made no mention of control. Simply being present in all aspects of life is not the same as having control over all aspects of life. For example, if you live in a western society it’s extremely probable that marketing and advertising are present in many aspects of your life, but I don’t think either of us would say that the simple fact of their presence gives the marketers control over those aspects of your life.
Well, yes, but I think that in practice living within a religious community imposes a lot of pressure to conform to the religious norms. Some of that pressure is social (from not being invited to the right cocktail parties to outright shunning) and some can be direct and violent. I recall that the haredim are not above throwing stones at cars on a Saturday...
I agree that this is the case in some religious communities, and that this is not necessarily the direction a rationalist community should go. (On the other hand, I have a hard time agreeing with the proposition that social pressure in favor of rationality is a bad thing, but I have yet to reach a definite conclusion on the subject.) However, I happen to be familiar with several religious communities where direct and violent pressure to conform is not the case, and it is those communities I wish to emulate.
I feel that the cohesiveness of a community and its effectiveness at maintaining its norms is directly and strongly correlated to the disincentives that it provides for deviating from these norms. Just presence of symbols is not enough.
Of course things like self-selection and evaporative cooling are major factors as well.
Based on admittedly anecdotal evidence I’m inclined believe this correlation, but I think we’re interpreting its existence differently. In my view, by becoming more “religious” and providing more disincentives for deviating from norms, we can increase our cohesiveness and effectiveness, but this should only be done up to a point, that point being, as far as I can tell, where we as a community can no longer tolerate the disincentives. This view is based on my value judgment that not all disincentives for deviating from norms I find acceptable or admirable are unacceptable, but rather too many disincentives or those that are too extreme are unacceptable.
Be careful about keeping descriptive and normative separate.
The correlation that we are talking about is descriptive and has to do with observable reality. What you think should be done and how is normative and has to do with your value judgments.
You’re right, my apologies.
My value judgment about disincentives still stands, though. Religious communities have a framework for applying social and other disincentives (and incentives) in order to achieve their desired result. That framework could be useful if adapted to the purpose of promoting rationality.
I’m not sure that science ‘itself’ (i.e. without cultural aspects shared with religion) “reliably gives its users comparative advantage”. The advantage for the individual is quite small—if not negative in some cases. It is only by the society embracing science that it gains the society at large a large advantage.
Now that we have science we individuals may find that ‘doing’ science is to our individual disadvatage and abstain from it (freerider-wise).
If on the other hand you see science as a set of cultural rules and customs—and your university example points in that direction—then science already has lots in common with religion. Why not build on that?
I’m not talking about benefits to individuals as much as benefits to companies and societies. I believe that of two otherwise very similar companies and societies, if one does R&D and the other doesn’t, the one that does will very reliably outcompete the other in the long term.
I’m all for developing non-superstitious alternatives to religion, and I do think community-building is a vital part of that. But to be inside that reference class must give rise to many associations, not all of which are fortunate. In particular, it renders the “creed” a matter of subjective belief and feeling. I wouldn’t want the Sequences to be seen that way. The creed your imagined community should center around would have to be something compatible with them, yet distinct from them. Humanism is one of the more obvious possibilities.
Free-riding can happen among societies too. It is quite possible that a society doing little R&D itself but applying R&D results from other societies outcompetes those. I hear this is happening in the form that some asian countries learn from the west without investing as much.
Freerider societies actually outcompeting innovators? Name three.
I wouldn’t call it freerider society but rather copy-cat societies but...
Japan did this at the end of the 19th century:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2781050?uid=3737864&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104386363121
And China did this until recently
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/processors/arm-days-of-china-copying-western-tech-are-ending-1247241
I guess quite a few asian satellites e.g. Taiwan did/do this too.
I don’t know if those examples show ‘outcompeting’. The overall picture of various countries doesn’t show late growers exceeding the absolute wealth of early growers (maybe one would predict this based on cultural/human-capital/institution theories?).
As far as Western industrialization went, the big players in roughly chronological order were the UK, Netherlands, France, USA, & Austria/Germany. It seems fair to call them the ‘innovators’, and you seem to have only East Asian countries in mind, so I’ll look at just China/Taiwan/Korea (South, but not North)/Japan/Hong Kong (which I think is all of them) as ‘imitators’.
Consider their wealth (GDP PPP per capita); in descending order it goes: United States (10), Hong Kong (10), Netherlands/Belgium (13/24), Austria/Germany (16/17), Taiwan (22), France (26), Japan (27), UK (28), South Korea (30), and 60 places way down the list is China (89).
How badly are they outcompeted? Well, South Korea & China beat none of them, Japan just barely edges out the UK (which we might attribute to socialist decay), Taiwan is past France & the UK but is pretty small, and Hong Kong is even more exceptional (tiny & UK-founded). In general, it seems to be better to be an ‘innovator’ than a (successful) ‘imitator’.
If I drop Hong Kong as too tiny and exceptional, the permutations seem to be going in the direction of innovation being better too:
At least, if the East Asians are ‘outcompeting’, it doesn’t look like it’s clearly happened yet.
I find it a very sensible move to go for numbers here, esp. GDP/capita, but I’m not sure that captures the outcompeting/freeriding that was meant.
If you’re talking about copycats reducing the distance they lag behind innovators, at a reduced cost relative to what the innovators invested into building that distance, those are good examples.
For outcompeting, no.
It’s hard to do country comparisons because of all the confounders. But for particular industries, it’s easy to find examples.
The Japanese automobile industry clearly outcompeted the US one during the late 80s and the 90s, for example. Or look at where all the semiconductors are produced.
This is not to say that being a copycat is better than being an innovator—just that the first-mover advantage sometimes is significant and sometimes is not.
On what basis do you consider the Japanese automobile industry not engaging in research and innovation?
For the data I can find Japan had in 1984 62k granted patents while the US had 67k Given that the US had roughly twice the population, Japan might have outcompeted the US because of more innovation.
You twist my words—I said nothing like this.
The Japanese cars gained market share in the US not because they were more technologically advanced. Their primary advantage was that they were more reliable, mostly as a function of better manufacturing practices.
One could consider that to be asign if higher sophistication.
As far as I remember it was more a function of the assembly workers tightening up the nuts with the correct torque and not dropping engine blocks on the floor before installing them. I am not sure better quality control counts as “higher sophistication” in this context.
Reducing the distance they lag behind by copy-catting is outcompeting—in the relative sense. Otherwise they wouldn’t catch up but fall further behind. That they didn’t start out at the same level could be considered more historical chance than missing ability.