3 ms·

Speculation is not useless! We are at a complete loss, not only at how to explain consciousness, but also at figuring out which direction to move in. As long as

Speculation is not useless! We are at a complete loss, not only at how to explain consciousness, but also at figuring out which direction to move in. As long as we understand that speculation is not fact, it can be useful in helping us pick directions to do scientific research in.

disusered 11y ago
That's actually not true anymore http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/528226/neurosciences-new-toolbox/ http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/528226/neurosc...
copsarebastards 11y ago
To the general public, this kind of speculation is useless. I'm certainly not going to be doing any exploratory research in this field, so having hypotheses to test isn't useful to me. Further, there's some danger here. I agree that Jaynes is clear about the speculative nature of his ideas. Jayne and other scientists talking about his work use lots of words like "might", "maybe", "could", "possibly". But you don't have to look far to find people parroting Jaynes' ideas, and often these qualifiers are the first thing to be lost in a game of whisper down the lane. Some people actively dislike these qualifying words, viewing them as "weasel words". Interesting speculation tends to enter the public consciousness as if it were fact. And false "facts" like this inform beliefs, policies, ideologies, even after they are long disproven. In fact, sometimes people who believe these things become scientists to try to prove the hypothesis they already believe. We have a chance when speculation like this comes up to nip these harmful societal ideas in the bud, to restate the only actual fact that we know, which is that we don't know, and that this speculation shouldn't be propagated and used.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  I mostly agree with you, except that I don't see how specifically Jayne's work is wrong or harmful. It is inherently non-scientific and so cannot inform any rational decision we make, and it is important to make sure that people understand that, but beyond that, I don't see any harm in speculating.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    > It is inherently non-scientific and so cannot inform any rational decision we make, and it is important to make sure that people understand that... Yes, but I'm saying people don't understand that.

disusered 11y ago

That's actually not true anymore http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/528226/neurosciences-new-toolbox/ http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/528226/neurosc...

copsarebastards 11y ago

To the general public, this kind of speculation is useless. I'm certainly not going to be doing any exploratory research in this field, so having hypotheses to test isn't useful to me. Further, there's some danger here. I agree that Jaynes is clear about the speculative nature of his ideas. Jayne and other scientists talking about his work use lots of words like "might", "maybe", "could", "possibly". But you don't have to look far to find people parroting Jaynes' ideas, and often these qualifiers are the first thing to be lost in a game of whisper down the lane. Some people actively dislike these qualifying words, viewing them as "weasel words". Interesting speculation tends to enter the public consciousness as if it were fact. And false "facts" like this inform beliefs, policies, ideologies, even after they are long disproven. In fact, sometimes people who believe these things become scientists to try to prove the hypothesis they already believe. We have a chance when speculation like this comes up to nip these harmful societal ideas in the bud, to restate the only actual fact that we know, which is that we don't know, and that this speculation shouldn't be propagated and used.

bweitzman 11y ago
I mostly agree with you, except that I don't see how specifically Jayne's work is wrong or harmful. It is inherently non-scientific and so cannot inform any rational decision we make, and it is important to make sure that people understand that, but beyond that, I don't see any harm in speculating.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > It is inherently non-scientific and so cannot inform any rational decision we make, and it is important to make sure that people understand that... Yes, but I'm saying people don't understand that.