Artificial life???
-
@tig said:
Seems to me that no one asked 'us', 'Should we create artificial life ?' - they just did it.
In which aspects are you (both specifically you and the plural 'you' inferred by the plural 'us') qualified to have any sort of opinion?
-
@tim said:
@tig said:
Seems to me that no one asked 'us', 'Should we create artificial life ?' - they just did it.
In which aspects are you (both specifically you and the plural 'you' inferred by the plural 'us') qualified to have any sort of opinion?
Anyone can have an 'opinion' about anything - no qualifications are necessary - in fact making a qualification a prerequisite of having an opinion pretty much rules out you having one - as you'd never be able to get beyond the starting-gate - who'd decide what those qualifications need to be? If it's the proponents of the idea who set them then they could instantly exclude anyone who might disagree with it. Whether or not an opinion is valid is irrelevant. An opinion is just that = 'an opinion' - no matter had ill-informed or uninformed it might be. An opinion is not a belief, or a statement of provable fact.
The simple fact that I/we live in this world and now someone has done something to it that might turn out to be ill-advised without any [or at least sufficient] prior consultation with 'us' [laymen] - although seemingly with some substantive prior ethical 'peer-review' by another team of scientists, over ten years ago when the theoretical idea of doing it was being discussed, and then with US government departments who were thinking about classifying it - i.e. not should we be doing it at all ! It can't now be undone - Pandora's Box is open for business.
At the simplest level the scientists' opinion must have been that making 'artificial-life' was a "good idea", and my/our counter opinion might be that it is "perhaps not a good idea" - but unfortunately once they have done it it can't be undone - at least if our opinion had dominated and it had not been done then that course of action would have at least been undo-able later - it could always have been done in the future had there have been sufficient strength of argument mustered in its favor. It's too late now.
The scientists have lots more information than I/we do [hopefully!], it has been discussed 'within their community', but by leaving 'laymen' uninformed of their intentions until they had actually already done it gave little chance for a constructive dialog as to whether it should be done or for anyone to lobby against it.
I know that we can't make every such decision 'democratically' [most of the world works without 'consultation'], but when something as significant as this is about to be done then at least some public debate might be in order before it happens.
As an example - I am working on a new GM virus that might 'cure cancer', BUT also just might wipe out all of the world's food-crops [<0.0001% chance], then some might think that there should be considerable debate and some checks and balances on my work before it is done, not after is is finished, and therefore no longer undo-able.
However - I make a new ExtrudeEdgesByRails tool for Sketchup - which no one asked for, I consulted no one beforehand - I just made it and published it - the difference there is that it isn't going to hurt anyone and most of the world will never know it exists as it isn't going to escape and cause havoc - the few who do find it useful [I hope].
I am not a Luddite or a technophobe, or against the appropriate use of science in every field of human endeavor - I support stem-cell research for example, whilst many are against it on moral grounds I feel the benefits outweigh the qualms and there are checks in place. However, in this case I am concerned that something has been done with perhaps insufficient forethought, and it is something that is so momentous that it should not be done so lightly. I hope that it will result in good things... but the US government's early interest in it worries me - militarization of science rarely has a pleasing outcome...
But that's just my opinion...
-
@tig said:
An opinion is not a belief, or a statement of provable fact.
I'm going to have to disagree with you somewhat. First, I think an opinion is in fact a belief about the way things are. Apparently the etymology of 'opinion' actually go back to Old French 'opinari' meaning 'think, believe'. Certainly in colloquial use most people appear to hold an opinion as strongly as a religious belief, and usually at least as noisily and obnoxiously. This leads to point the second - most people think their opinions are in fact proven fact - after all they're their opinions, dammit! This may be one of the major causes of war.
But the real problem is that reality is not decided on the American Idol model, no matter how dearly one holds to the ideals of democracy. Facts are not up for a vote, fortunately. To return a bit closer to the current topic, I know a little of biology and genetics, so my opinion is of small but positive worth. Most of my neighbours know just about nothing germane to the matter and so their opinions are worth pretty much nothing. One particular neighbour is a retired professor of a biology department, which might make you think his opinion would be very valuable, except that he is a wingnut, religionist and thinks the Plimer book on climate change is the complete and utter truth. Guess how valuable I'd rate his opinion?
I would love to live in a world where most people had opinions based on sound education, careful thought, polite debate and wisdom. Ain't gonna happen any time soon. That's my opinion, anyway.
-
The very reason we have two words - 'opinion' and 'belief' is that they do mean subtly different things - although there usage does overlap in daily speech...
An 'opinion' is a subjective statement about an issue, that is either an emotional response or a personal interpretation of some information. An opinion may be supported by arguments or facts, although people might draw opposing opinions from the same facts. Opinions can change when new arguments are presented. It can be argued that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another, by analyzing the supporting facts.
A 'belief', on the other hand, is a mental acceptance of a claim to truth regardless of the lack of supporting empirical evidence or facts. A belief will normally be kept despite facts being offered that counter it robustly.
Either way, you do not need 'qualifications' to hold opinions or to have beliefs. You can shape people's opinions by rational argument [e.g. 'Synthetic life is good because...'], but you cannot readily change their beliefs [e.g. 'There is no God because...'].
Ironically, 'to be opinionated' has negative connotations, but 'to believe' in something is often seen as positive [unless in 'blindly believe...']...
Any opinion is an opinion, in my opinion.
Advertisement