This would seem to prove that there are no non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France
How rational do you think this sort of remark makes you look? (Downvoted.)
What prompted that bizarre legislation?
It’s hard to ever answer this kind of question precisely, but I suspect the case of the Martinots had something to do with the timing of it, triggering new legislation specifically to avoid a recurrence.
The more general force behind it is the pervasive meme that “our lives are not in our own hands”, which justifies a number of stances: on abortion, on euthanasia, on suicide and assisted suicide, and on cryonics. The meme is, I suspect, more likely to occur as a tribal belief of people who identify as “conservatives” or “the right”, and that’s who has been in power here for a while.
Logic is a useful tool to have at our disposal, but we should avoid falling into the trap of losing track of the difference between logical deduction and intuitive inference, let alone expressions of anger and frustration (however justified).
Stepping back and looking at it objectively, do you not think a more likely conclusion to start with is that there are non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France, who just don’t happen to form a majority?
Have I really underestimated the inferential distance so much? I’m curious, is there anyone reading this who could follow the reference?
It is, in fact, a logical deduction from straightforward premises. Moreover it is one that I don’t particularly care about as more than a curiosity.
Stepping back and looking at it objectively, do you not think a more likely conclusion to start with is that there are non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France, who just don’t happen to form a majority?
Technically no. The probability I assign to less than 50% of the population of a country being rationalists is somewhere in the ballpark of a mere 99.999%. That is less than 1. I say ‘technically’ because the comparison is not relevant.
Nitpick: I think you mean underestimated the inferential distance? But that’s not the appropriate concept, because, again, this is not actually a matter of logical deduction. Are you suggesting it’s suicidal for a Frenchman not to emigrate to a country where cryonics is available? If so, I can point out several ways this is not a deduction.
How rational do you think this sort of remark makes you look? (Downvoted.)
It’s hard to ever answer this kind of question precisely, but I suspect the case of the Martinots had something to do with the timing of it, triggering new legislation specifically to avoid a recurrence.
The more general force behind it is the pervasive meme that “our lives are not in our own hands”, which justifies a number of stances: on abortion, on euthanasia, on suicide and assisted suicide, and on cryonics. The meme is, I suspect, more likely to occur as a tribal belief of people who identify as “conservatives” or “the right”, and that’s who has been in power here for a while.
Excuse me? I did not think the straightforward logical deduction would be so hard to follow after alluded to.
Logic is a useful tool to have at our disposal, but we should avoid falling into the trap of losing track of the difference between logical deduction and intuitive inference, let alone expressions of anger and frustration (however justified).
Stepping back and looking at it objectively, do you not think a more likely conclusion to start with is that there are non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France, who just don’t happen to form a majority?
Have I really underestimated the inferential distance so much? I’m curious, is there anyone reading this who could follow the reference?
It is, in fact, a logical deduction from straightforward premises. Moreover it is one that I don’t particularly care about as more than a curiosity.
Technically no. The probability I assign to less than 50% of the population of a country being rationalists is somewhere in the ballpark of a mere 99.999%. That is less than 1. I say ‘technically’ because the comparison is not relevant.
Nitpick: I think you mean underestimated the inferential distance? But that’s not the appropriate concept, because, again, this is not actually a matter of logical deduction. Are you suggesting it’s suicidal for a Frenchman not to emigrate to a country where cryonics is available? If so, I can point out several ways this is not a deduction.
Yes.