4 ms·

Within the group of people working on the existential risks are a lot of really useless and absurd factions providing a lot of theories grounded in their own sc

• circuit10 3y ago
  They sound silly at first but many things have nowadays would sound ridiculous to people in the past; something sounding strange isn’t valid evidence against it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone > Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. The arguments for it are a it abstract sometimes (which is maybe why science fiction is a good way to give a concrete, if unrealistic, introduction to the concept) but I think they seem pretty solid
  • sebzim4500 3y ago
    In my experience the ex risk people understand that using science fiction examples makes a weak argument, and avoid them entirely. It is the other people who use the age-old argument of "something like what you are describing happened in a piece of fiction, therefore it could never happen in real life".
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > In my experience the ex risk people understand that using science fiction examples makes a weak argument, and avoid them entirely. Roko's Basilisk is a weaker argument than most analogy-to-scifi arguments, because the assumptions underpinning most scifi used in such arguments are less implausiable than those underlying the Basilisk.
      • sebzim4500 3y ago
        True but I haven't heard anyone unironically talk about Roku's Basilisk in years.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]