X-Message-Number: 184 From att!CHARON.arc.nasa.gov!Hanson Tue Jun 5 23:36:20 1990 Return-Path: <att!CHARON.arc.nasa.gov!Hanson> Received: from att.UUCP by whscad1.att.uucp (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA02514; Tue, 5 Jun 90 23:36:19 EDT Received: by att.att.com; Tue Jun 5 23:26:43 1990 Received: from GANYMEDE.arc.nasa.gov by CHARON.arc.nasa.gov via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 61909; 5 Jun 90 19:51:45 PDT Date: Tue, 5 Jun 90 19:50 PDT From: Robin Hanson <> Subject: Re: Science Court To: Cc: In-Reply-To: <> Message-Id: <> In <>, Thomas Donaldson writes: >I've actually been skeptical of science courts for a long time. The hard >essence of science is that it is decided by the REAL WORLD, not by a court. >If someone wants to have a debate, then that would be a good thing. It >would of course stylize what happens now in an ongoing way. >Some people think of science courts as judging social issues. I do not think >I would cease to work for cryonics because a group of people calling themselves >a "court" decided that it was somehow socially harmful. I am confused by Thomas's skepticism regarding science courts. Does he A) not think they are useful for achieving their intended aims, or B) not think those intended aims are important? OF COURSE the real world decides what is really "true", but how does that help us in the task of finding social institutions to help us to estimate what is true? This issue is very important in general, and of special relevance to cryonics. On most science questions, such as the technical feasibility of cryonics, most people do not have the time to research the subject themselves in depth. Unless they happen to know someone they trust who has studied it, they must trust the output of some social institution of their choosing, or perhaps combine the results of several. (Note this is consistent with Thomas continuing to work on cryonics no matter what anyone says, as he considers himself an expert.) The problem people face is to find or create social institutions whose estimates they can trust. If there were enough data, they could choose the institutions that are right more often, but usually they must choose based on whether the institutional process looks sound. Participants should have clear incentives to be honest, careful, and well-studied when they contribute to the institution's estimates of truth. Hyperbole, fashion, and politics should not dominate. The existing dominant social institutions of science, centered around peer-review of publications and grants, have many failings, documented in a growing literature (see books "Profscam", "Intellectual Compromise"). In particular, the apparent consensus estimate the public sees on the question of the technical feasibility of cryonics is extremely biased, in my opinion. Science courts are an attempt to develop alternative science institutions by drawing on successful institutions in law, emphasising cross-examination and documenting areas of agreement. Various concepts in hypertext publishing can be thought of as other alternatives. I myself am working on a market-based alternative, called "Idea Futures". (I have a paper on this should anyone be interested.) And there is room for more ideas. But however we do it, we need to develop better social institutions of science. Fans of cryonics, which has been treated particularly unfairly by the present institutions, should be particularly interested in and supportive of this process. Robin Hanson (or ) 415-604-3361 MS244-17, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 415-651-7483 47164 Male Terrace, Fremont, CA 94539-7921 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=184