I disagree. I'm a scientist; science is part of my identity. Therefore I can't have fruitful discussions about science? About the value of science? I don't think that's correct.
In fact, Paul Graham's set-up is flawed. If the amount of money a policy will cost has a definite answer then there won't be long discussion of how much a policy will cost. Instead the long discussion will be whether it's worth the cost. But if the everyone basically agrees that the policy of clear-cutting the Amazonian rain forest and burning all the wood is not only not worth the cost but a bad idea, then it won't spur long discussions either.
The flaw is rather basic. Paul Graham is conflating politics with specific issues in the political domain. Tsk tsk!
In fact, Paul Graham's set-up is flawed. If the amount of money a policy will cost has a definite answer then there won't be long discussion of how much a policy will cost. Instead the long discussion will be whether it's worth the cost. But if the everyone basically agrees that the policy of clear-cutting the Amazonian rain forest and burning all the wood is not only not worth the cost but a bad idea, then it won't spur long discussions either.
The flaw is rather basic. Paul Graham is conflating politics with specific issues in the political domain. Tsk tsk!