SoullessAutomaton comments on Just a reminder: Scientists are, technically, people. - Less Wrong

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 20 March 2009 08:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (33)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CarlShulman 21 March 2009 02:33:43AM *  1 point [-]

Bryan Caplan's research on differences of opinion between expert economists and others finds (in his datasets) that there are big effects of education and IQ, bigger than liberal or conservative ideological effects, but the latter still remain: people with graduate degrees agree more with economists, but conservative PhDs in industry and liberal PhDs in academia tend to disagree with each other.

"a failure to grasp the empirical fact that personhood resides in brain structure: no neurons, no person."

Do you think that personhood is really an 'empirical fact'? How would you empirically measure when a developing fetus or infant's (or toddler's, depending on your view of personhood) brain becomes a person without a value-laden definition? Likewise for temporary or permanent brain damage.

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 21 March 2009 02:49:48AM 3 points [-]

Do you think that personhood is really an 'empirical fact'? How would you empirically measure when a developing fetus or infant's (or toddler's, depending on your view of personhood) brain becomes a person without a value-laden definition? Likewise for temporary or permanent brain damage.

Is personhood really a binary proposition at all, or a matter of degree?

Of course, for almost any non-incoherent definition of personhood, the degree of personhood during the first trimester is roughly nil.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 21 March 2009 04:21:31PM 3 points [-]

We need laws that incorporate continuous functions.