The hypothetical 1800s scientists were making mistakes of reasoning that we could now do better than. Not even just because we know more about physics, but because know better how to operate arguments about physical law and novel phenomena.
I find this interesting enough to discuss the plausibility of on its own.
What this says by analogy about Rob’s arguments depends on what you translate and what you don’t.
On one view, it says that Rob is failing to take advantage of reasoning about intelligence that we could do now, because we know better ways of taking advantage of information than they did in 1800.
On another view, it says that Rob is only failing to take advantage of reasoning that future people would be aware of. The future people would be better than us at thinking about intelligence by as much as we are better than 1800 people at thinking about physics.
I think the first analogy is closer to right and the second is closer to wrong. You can’t just make an analogy to a time when people were ignorant and universally refute anyone who claims that we can be less ignorant.
I’ll spell out what I see as the point:
The hypothetical 1800s scientists were making mistakes of reasoning that we could now do better than. Not even just because we know more about physics, but because know better how to operate arguments about physical law and novel phenomena.
I find this interesting enough to discuss the plausibility of on its own.
What this says by analogy about Rob’s arguments depends on what you translate and what you don’t.
On one view, it says that Rob is failing to take advantage of reasoning about intelligence that we could do now, because we know better ways of taking advantage of information than they did in 1800.
On another view, it says that Rob is only failing to take advantage of reasoning that future people would be aware of. The future people would be better than us at thinking about intelligence by as much as we are better than 1800 people at thinking about physics.
I think the first analogy is closer to right and the second is closer to wrong. You can’t just make an analogy to a time when people were ignorant and universally refute anyone who claims that we can be less ignorant.
Okay, so we both took completely different things as being “the point”. One of the hazards of resorting to analogies.