I enjoyed your book. You wrote above that "ideas that are closer to the truth are likely to be selected more often because they provide stronger arguments." The humoral theory of disease may have survived for many centuries not because it was closer to the truth or provided stronger arguments but that it could be adapted and adopted by healers of various religious traditions. A virus-like model might illustrate the development, survival and spread of ideas.
Thanks for your comment, I am very glad you liked the book!
I remember reading this description of the humoral theory of disease in Hugo Mercier's book "Not born yesterday", very interesting. I think Mill has already the right take on this question: nothing guarantees that the truth will win here and now, but eventually the circumstnaces will change and when the social conditions are propicious (in particular I would say when the logic of coalitional conflicts does not lead the most powerful coalition to need to reject the truth) the truth will prevail.
A key difference between truth and untruth is that the truth is out there for the taking in some sense. A second aspect (which I plan to discuss in posts on the logic of games of communication) is that truth is more likely to prevail given the rules of good-faith communication which impose to support more logical and empirically supported views. And so eventually, for these reasons, truth is likely to prevail.
"A key difference between truth and untruth is that the truth is out there for the taking in some sense." Mill noted the persistence of truth, that it kept popping up despite efforts to suppress it. Like an arcade game of whack-a-mole would be a good analogy. P.S. I like your remark about the game logic that drives the rejection of truth.
Interesting discussion, thank you! (Not just this post but previous ones too. In particular, your write up of the marketplace of rationalisations was very clear and helped me see that idea fresh again.)
Now you're turning to solutions, I'd like to make the case for radically open approaches to governance, and specifically far greater use of citizen assemblies. Their deliberative format goes with the grain of human reason as a tool of argumentation. This in turn makes them a good "mechanism for elevating the best ideas in society". And because they do not entail the grubby compromises of representative democracy, participants in a citizen assembly can more easily meet your key demand, to "resist the appeal of shaping it [debate] around our positions".
My paper on the topic is 'Human nature & the open society'. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have!
Thanks a lot Thom. I agree. I am a big fan of citizen assemblies. I have actually the plan to write a post on sortitions at some point. I have recorded your link in the list of future references for it!
I enjoyed your book. You wrote above that "ideas that are closer to the truth are likely to be selected more often because they provide stronger arguments." The humoral theory of disease may have survived for many centuries not because it was closer to the truth or provided stronger arguments but that it could be adapted and adopted by healers of various religious traditions. A virus-like model might illustrate the development, survival and spread of ideas.
Thanks for your comment, I am very glad you liked the book!
I remember reading this description of the humoral theory of disease in Hugo Mercier's book "Not born yesterday", very interesting. I think Mill has already the right take on this question: nothing guarantees that the truth will win here and now, but eventually the circumstnaces will change and when the social conditions are propicious (in particular I would say when the logic of coalitional conflicts does not lead the most powerful coalition to need to reject the truth) the truth will prevail.
A key difference between truth and untruth is that the truth is out there for the taking in some sense. A second aspect (which I plan to discuss in posts on the logic of games of communication) is that truth is more likely to prevail given the rules of good-faith communication which impose to support more logical and empirically supported views. And so eventually, for these reasons, truth is likely to prevail.
"A key difference between truth and untruth is that the truth is out there for the taking in some sense." Mill noted the persistence of truth, that it kept popping up despite efforts to suppress it. Like an arcade game of whack-a-mole would be a good analogy. P.S. I like your remark about the game logic that drives the rejection of truth.
Interesting discussion, thank you! (Not just this post but previous ones too. In particular, your write up of the marketplace of rationalisations was very clear and helped me see that idea fresh again.)
Now you're turning to solutions, I'd like to make the case for radically open approaches to governance, and specifically far greater use of citizen assemblies. Their deliberative format goes with the grain of human reason as a tool of argumentation. This in turn makes them a good "mechanism for elevating the best ideas in society". And because they do not entail the grubby compromises of representative democracy, participants in a citizen assembly can more easily meet your key demand, to "resist the appeal of shaping it [debate] around our positions".
My paper on the topic is 'Human nature & the open society'. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have!
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64e385e145e8e55034c9cdc3/t/64e6019ca2870010b4a3e56c/1692795293057/Scott-Phillips+2023+Human+nature+%26+open+society.pdf
It's part of an edited collection, 'Open Society Unresolved'.
Thanks a lot Thom. I agree. I am a big fan of citizen assemblies. I have actually the plan to write a post on sortitions at some point. I have recorded your link in the list of future references for it!