rationalskepticism.org

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Xerographica wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Democracy is the least unfair system that I am aware of. It's not perfect, but it's the best we currently have.

My main point is that there's no evidence that voting is better than spending at ranking things.

And again, there's no evidence for the inverse either.

Correct. Therefore... what? We just continue to use voting despite the fact that there's no evidence that it's more effective than spending?

For me it's simple. I'm very much disturbed, and bothered, by the lack of evidence.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Xerographica wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:2. This means you have no objective basis to assert that one way would elevate trash and the other treasures. Especially since you haven't even properly defined what 'trash' or 'treasures' refers to exactly.

Like you pointed out... trash and treasure are subjective, so it would be pointless for me to try and define them.

So you admit your analogy is fatally flawed?

My theory is that voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure. My theory is either wrong or right. Experiments will either prove, or disprove, my theory.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Why? By what objective measure are Smith and Charles demonstrably better than Rowling?
And again, what makes you think Rowling would be at the top, because right now, she isn't.

You have your own estimates of how useful different authors are. You'd see if the estimates of voting or spending were closer to your own.

You have your own estimates of the usefulness of exercising and smoking. You'd see if the estimates of voting or spending were closer to your own.

Right now you're focused on the lack of objectiveness, but it's a given that either the voting ranking or the spending ranking is going to be closer to your own ranking.

Imagine two very different worlds. One is much closer to your own preferences... which one do you choose? Of course you'd choose the world that is much closer to your own preferences.