I would never say that approaching a topic using data and logic and science is flawed. But I would definitely say that approaching EVERY topic using data and logic and science is flawed. And with every bit of logic that you can have under your tooth, you will never be able to take out the human factor out of a problem (even if science says we should), first simply because we don't want to. And science is all about forgetting the context, and denying the experience. Such complex factors that has led the world to where we are now.
I would personally hate that someone calls out my argument as bullshit when based on sufficient scientific data, but I have to recognise that whatever I may say about anything that is logic-supported, I will have to compose with something that needs way more compromises than science and logic wants. Especially if the subject reaches a great amount of people (favourite topics of EA btw). And this contrast is probably not to the taste of everyone. EA might be a good way of thinking, but at times of decisions, in the politics in particular, who said this would be a good way of convincing ? If EA is a research field, using important facts that are nat always fully scientifically recouped, corroborated or supported and simply throwing them out to the public like it is an evidence is of course tricky.
The rationalist answer is totally receivable. Not need to dive into the facts, you just disagree, because it is a point of view you are not supporting for philosophical reasons. Same thing as rejecting an opinion pictured as "cynical","communist" or "liberal". And yeah, you can think a philosophy is good for you and a group of people but will certainly not extend beyond that limit, so you simply let the others talk about it. Besides, AI is in the article but not every article is about EA in AI or vice-versa, so any other supporter of EA simply might not have an opinion on that, and therefore not give a damn about this article.
To fight back on that, I would first start to question wether those statements are completely out of the frame or not. There is a bit of truth evidently because EA does not hold the ultimate answer, simply by acknowledging the fact that every opinion exists and won't stick with the neighbor one.
I think we start to define an opinion as weird if it doesn't take, or seems to be taking into account everything (else said, it does not provide by itself the answer to any question). We might find ourselves against something having fully understood its concept, but also when we can't adhere to something we can't fully encircle. which in my opinion is the case for EA. The philosophy is too young to not dive into possible paradox, argument gaps, things like that, you know. And because it does not have the simple, omniscient and superior answer that a religion can have, there is no reason to start to believe in any of this.
In general, I would consider extremely sketchy to define such a large idea as, well, the ideal. It is stating boldly that what you think should be done is the very best version, and with a little nuage of nuance, at least with the negative effects being at an infimum, of what humanity can achieve, having taken EVERYTHING into account. So when supporting obiously a conviction that isn't perfect, people will of course point the weakest part of the dialogue. EA might work in a specific era, with a certain kind of people, and (probably) with -very?- limited effects. I guess it will change as soon as something, inside the description of this movement, answers to interrogations we (I) cannot even formulate in the first place but are fundamental. Then some would start to take it seriously. If not, this version of EA simply can't get understood by a sufficient amount of people.
I would never say that approaching a topic using data and logic and science is flawed. But I would definitely say that approaching EVERY topic using data and logic and science is flawed. And with every bit of logic that you can have under your tooth, you will never be able to take out the human factor out of a problem (even if science says we should), first simply because we don't want to. And science is all about forgetting the context, and denying the experience. Such complex factors that has led the world to where we are now.
I would personally hate that someone calls out my argument as bullshit when based on sufficient scientific data, but I have to recognise that whatever I may say about anything that is logic-supported, I will have to compose with something that needs way more compromises than science and logic wants. Especially if the subject reaches a great amount of people (favourite topics of EA btw). And this contrast is probably not to the taste of everyone. EA might be a good way of thinking, but at times of decisions, in the politics in particular, who said this would be a good way of convincing ? If EA is a research field, using important facts that are nat always fully scientifically recouped, corroborated or supported and simply throwing them out to the public like it is an evidence is of course tricky.
The rationalist answer is totally receivable. Not need to dive into the facts, you just disagree, because it is a point of view you are not supporting for philosophical reasons. Same thing as rejecting an opinion pictured as "cynical","communist" or "liberal". And yeah, you can think a philosophy is good for you and a group of people but will certainly not extend beyond that limit, so you simply let the others talk about it. Besides, AI is in the article but not every article is about EA in AI or vice-versa, so any other supporter of EA simply might not have an opinion on that, and therefore not give a damn about this article.
To fight back on that, I would first start to question wether those statements are completely out of the frame or not. There is a bit of truth evidently because EA does not hold the ultimate answer, simply by acknowledging the fact that every opinion exists and won't stick with the neighbor one.
I think we start to define an opinion as weird if it doesn't take, or seems to be taking into account everything (else said, it does not provide by itself the answer to any question). We might find ourselves against something having fully understood its concept, but also when we can't adhere to something we can't fully encircle. which in my opinion is the case for EA. The philosophy is too young to not dive into possible paradox, argument gaps, things like that, you know. And because it does not have the simple, omniscient and superior answer that a religion can have, there is no reason to start to believe in any of this.
In general, I would consider extremely sketchy to define such a large idea as, well, the ideal. It is stating boldly that what you think should be done is the very best version, and with a little nuage of nuance, at least with the negative effects being at an infimum, of what humanity can achieve, having taken EVERYTHING into account. So when supporting obiously a conviction that isn't perfect, people will of course point the weakest part of the dialogue. EA might work in a specific era, with a certain kind of people, and (probably) with -very?- limited effects. I guess it will change as soon as something, inside the description of this movement, answers to interrogations we (I) cannot even formulate in the first place but are fundamental. Then some would start to take it seriously. If not, this version of EA simply can't get understood by a sufficient amount of people.