Re:Bayes's Theorem: What's the Big Deal?
by Anderkent on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @08:27PM
(#10847722)
I don't understand how you can be so certain that the hypothetical scenarios they imagine can't possibly happen. Even if it really is laughable, we spend a lot of money on laughable research (homeopathy, anyone?), so why is this case so particularly bad?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bayes's Theorem: What's the Big Deal?
by manish_gill on Wednesday January 06, 2016 @03:45AM
(#10849345)
...Just because we've spent money on one laughable research doesn't mean we should spend it on more, does it? Are you seriously going to argue that?
Re:Bayes's Theorem: What's the Big Deal?
by Anderkent on Wednesday January 06, 2016 @06:38AM
(#10849956)
No, what I'm arguing is that if we only spent money on things everyone agrees are useful, we'd never get anything done.
Re:Bayes's Theorem: What's the Big Deal?
by manish_gill on Wednesday January 06, 2016 @08:47AM
(#10850433)
Not everyone has to agree. That's why we have the scientific method and research institutes. If the current science shows that something is worth exploring in more detail, that some avenues are worth spending money on, spending money on them makes sense.
Bullshit Ideas like AI apocalypse and singularity, transhumanism, downloading brain into a computer do not fit into that criteria.
Re:Bayes's Theorem: What's the Big Deal?
by Anderkent on Wednesday January 06, 2016 @10:57AM
(#10851154)
So how do ideas get to the stage where the 'research institutes' agree they're worth investigating?
It seems to me like you're saying "I don't like these ideas, no one should be working on them". That seems a worse principle then "everyone should work on ideas they find worth investigating".
I also have no idea how you distinguish 'Bullshit Ideas' from non-bullshit ideas without investigating them. Your gut is not that good at distinguishing truth from a blunder.