NancyLebovitz comments on Expecting Short Inferential Distances - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (91)
Now I think of it, this reminds of something Richard Dawkins used to say at some talks: that we (the modern audience) could give Aristotle a tutorial. Being a fantasist myself, I've sometimes wondered how that could be possible. Leaving aside the complications of building a time machine (I leave that to other people), I wondered how would it be to actually meet Aristotle and explain to him some of the things we now know about life, the universe & everything.
First of all, I'd have to learn ancient greek, of course, or no communication would be possible. That would be the easy (and the only easy) part. More complicated would be that, to teach anything modern to Aristotle, one would have to teach an incredible amount of previous stuff. That is, one would have to step quite a large number of inferential steps. If I wanted to explain, for example, the theory of evolution, that would require a lot of anatomy, geography, zoology, botany, and even mathematics and philosophy. One would have to be a true polymath to achieve the feat. It's not that we don't know more about the universe than Aristotle, it is that to cross the inferential 'gap' between Aristotle and us would require an inordinate amount of knowledge.
Maybe a good metaphor is based on Dennett's crane idea: we develop ideas that help us reach higher levels of understanding, but as soon as we reach those upper levels we discard them to build new ones for higher levels. To help someone on the floor, one has to 'rebuild' these old cranes no longer in use.
Actually, evolution might be the easiest one. It's inevitable if you have variation and selection. It's a really pretty theory.
I don't know how hard it would be to convey that observation and experimentation will take you farther than just theorizing.
If I brought back some tech far advanced over Aristotle's period (and I wonder what would be most convincing), it might add weight to my arguments.
And personally, even if I had a time machine and the knowledge of ancient Greek, I don't know what hard it would be to get him to listen to a woman.
One more thing beside a time machine, knowledge of ancient Greek, and a stash of cool stuff-- the ability to argue well enough to convey your ideas to Aristotle and convince him you're right.
This is probably at least as hard as it sounds.