harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) (01/17/90)
It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that a suitable alternative
to creating a separate Objectivist newsgroup would be to have Objectivists
post to sci.philosophy.meta. In my judgement, this could only mitigate
the situation temporarily; it is not a solution at all. What is needed
is sci.philosophy.objectivism, a newsgroup where individuals interested
in Objectivism can discuss the philosophy.
The revolution which Ayn Rand created in philosophy was primarily
epistemological, not political or ethical. Her single greatest achievment,
in my judgement, is her theory of concepts. This theory makes it possible
to understand in explicit terms the cognitive processes by which a human
abstracts from perceptual data, and consequently makes possible an
unprecedented level of clarity in the physical sciences and in the humanities.
This is why sci.philosophy.objectivism is justified--because the central
problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is the relationship of
perceptual data to abstract ideas.
If it is true that sci.philosophy.meta is unused, why not dismantle
it? The resulting unused newsgroup could become sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Of course, sci.philosophy.meta would have to be completely gone--the
name would be sci.philosophy.objectivism and the charter would be completely
different. Those who have suggested that Objectivists post to sci.philosophy.
meta, is this acceptable? If not, why not?
Joe Harris
harris@portia.stanford.edugall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) (01/17/90)
harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes: | The revolution which Ayn Rand created in philosophy was primarily | epistemological, not political or ethical. Her single greatest achievment, | in my judgement, is her theory of concepts. This theory makes it possible | to understand in explicit terms the cognitive processes by which a human | abstracts from perceptual data, and consequently makes possible an | unprecedented level of clarity in the physical sciences and in the humanities Well, let's nip this in the bud. Ayn Rand's 'revolution in philosophy' has had practically no effect at all in 20th century epistemology and of 50 philosophy departments in North America if there are 10 philosophers doing serious work in her epistemology, I'd be surprised. However, I will say that one of the more philosophically relevant portions of her writings is the 'Theory of Concepts.' 6 ~?~?~?~?~?~?~?~?~ | This is why sci.philosophy.objectivism is justified--because the central | problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is the relationship of | perceptual data to abstract ideas. Hmmmmmm...... why is this a _scientific_ problem.... sounds like a philosophical one to me. -- York University | "Philosophers who make the general claim that a Department of Philosophy | rule simply 'reduces to' its formulations Toronto, Ontario, Canada | are using Occam's razor to cut the throat _________________________| of common sense.' - R. Harris
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/17/90)
Greg Nowak suggests that objectivists should use sci.philosophy.meta because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing Objectivism. A newsgroup for discussing Objectivism, the philsophy of Ayn Rand, is what is needed. Of course, if sci.philosophy.meta was to be renamed to sci.philsophy.objectivism, it would be all right but then there have been some discussions in sci.philosophy.meta and I doubt if the posters there would be willing to lose that newsgroup. -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/17/90)
In article <8284@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes: } It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that a suitable alternative }to creating a separate Objectivist newsgroup would be to have Objectivists }post to sci.philosophy.meta. In my judgement, this could only mitigate }the situation temporarily; it is not a solution at all. Please explain to all of us, especially to Mr. Stubblefield, why sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for objectivist postings. Over 90% of the objectivist postings to 'tech have been his. Those of us who are only interested in getting objectivist postings out of 'tech can't see why they are less appropriate in 'meta than in 'tech. }What is needed }is sci.philosophy.objectivism, a newsgroup where individuals interested }in Objectivism can discuss the philosophy. I have no problem with this. Until it appears, could the objectivist discussion move to 'meta, and respect the topic of 'tech by not posting objectivsit messages to it? }This is why sci.philosophy.objectivism is justified--because the central }problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is the relationship of }perceptual data to abstract ideas. This is much more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, but that's irrelevant right now. All of your arguments that objectivism needs its own newsgroup can also be interpreted as arguments that objectivist postings are inappropriate in 'tech. } If it is true that sci.philosophy.meta is unused, why not dismantle }it? The resulting unused newsgroup could become }sci.philosophy.objectivism. This is not how the net works. }Of course, sci.philosophy.meta would have to be completely gone--the }name would be sci.philosophy.objectivism and the charter would be completely }different. Those who have suggested that Objectivists post to sci.philosophy. }meta, is this acceptable? If not, why not? Because it would take six weeks to create sci.philosophy.objectivism. If the objectivists are in such dire need of a newsgroup, why don't they move into 'meta, and then work on renaming it? Surely so rational person as Ayn Rand would not refuse to move into an otherwise acceptable house merely because there was a defect in the sign giving its street number. The rest of the net is creaking and straining under the weight of countless objectivist postings yearning for a newsgroup of their own. Sci.philosophy.meta could _be_ that newsgroup, STARTING TOMORROW, and then you'd just have to change the name. This route to your goal has a much higher likelihood of success than an attempt to create sci.philosophy.objectivism from scratch. ...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/17/90)
In article <9001162348.AA11695@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@apee.ogi.edu (Mehul Dave) writes: }Greg Nowak suggests that objectivists should use sci.philosophy.meta }because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating }sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to }use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing }Objectivism. THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. Please explain this to R.W. Stubblefield; perhaps he will accept this coming from a fellow objectivist. As of now he has refused to discuss the issue, and has decided for himself that his postings are appropriate there. }A newsgroup for discussing Objectivism, the philsophy of }Ayn Rand, is what is needed. Of course, if sci.philosophy.meta was to }be renamed to sci.philsophy.objectivism, it would be all right but then }there have been some discussions in sci.philosophy.meta and I doubt if }the posters there would be willing to lose that newsgroup. There is almost no activity there; the only articles I found in its spool directory were those in the widely-crossposted "proving programs correct" thread. Of course, the story you tell is exactly the case with sci.philosophy.tech, an active newsgroup which has been invaded by inappropriate objectivist postings, mainly coming from RW Stubblefield. ...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/17/90)
In article <12987@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Greg Nowak writes: >In article <9001162348.AA11695@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@apee.ogi.edu (Mehul Dave) writes: >}Greg Nowak suggests that objectivists should use sci.philosophy.meta >}because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating >}sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to >}use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing >}Objectivism. > >THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings >don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. Please explain this to R.W. >Stubblefield; perhaps he will accept this coming from a fellow >objectivist. As of now he has refused to discuss the issue, and has >decided for himself that his postings are appropriate there. Now, wait a minute. The chronology of events is like this. Mr. Stubblefield posted to sci.philosophy.tech judging it to be the most appropriate newsgroup for his postings relating to Objectivism because he could not find any other newsgroup appropriate for it. Then there was the suggestion to start a new newsgroup for postings related to Objectivism in sci.philosophy.tech. The call for discussion was for talk.philosophy.objectivism and I suggested that it should be sci.philosophy.objectivism and then you suggested that objectivists should post to sci.philosophy.meta and hence my post quoted above. I didn't say anything about where Mr. Stubblefield's postings should go and that is not the issue being discussed. The issue is creating SPO. We are asking for SPO because there seems to be some support from it even from people who oppose objectivism. That has little to do with whether Mr. Stubblefield should post on SPT right now or not. Obviously, he will not post there if there was sci.philosophy.objectivism. >}A newsgroup for discussing Objectivism, the philsophy of >}Ayn Rand, is what is needed. Of course, if sci.philosophy.meta was to >}be renamed to sci.philsophy.objectivism, it would be all right but then >}there have been some discussions in sci.philosophy.meta and I doubt if >}the posters there would be willing to lose that newsgroup. > >There is almost no activity there; the only articles I found in its >spool directory were those in the widely-crossposted "proving programs >correct" thread. Of course, the story you tell is exactly the case >with sci.philosophy.tech, an active newsgroup which has been invaded >by inappropriate objectivist postings, mainly coming from RW Stubblefield. I have been reading that newsgroup for a while and there was a big discussion about "I do not exist" (!!!???). Then, suddenly, it subsided and there were some postings off and on till the subject you mention. In any event, that is not relevant. The discussion going on here was about creating a new newsgroup called sci.philosophy.objectivism. Posting to sci.philosophy.meta is just a temporary solution. We would like a newsgroup to discuss Objectivism. You also mentioned in your reply to Joe Harris that it would take six weeks to establish sci.philosophy.objectivism. Quite true. But it would establish a newsgroup for Objectivism and it would be a permanent solution. (BTW, Objectivism would prefer this latter solution because it is long range as opposed to the pragmatic version of it :-) > Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540 -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) (01/17/90)
Sender: Joe T. Harris Reply-To: harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) Distribution: news.groups Organization: Stanford University <8284@portia.Stanford.EDU> In article <12986@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) writes: >Please explain to all of us...why >sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for >objectivist postings. In article <12987@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, the same author writes: >In article <9001162348.AA11695@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@apee.ogi.edu (Mehul Dave) >writes: >}Greg Nowak suggests that objectivists should use sci.philosophy.meta >}because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating >}sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to >}use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing >}Objectivism. >THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings >don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. As far as I can tell, neither sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta is inappropriate for Objectivist postings. All the postings to sci.philosophy. tech by Objectivists have been technical, scientific expositions, from my postings on the sciences of mathematics and physics to other postings on the science of ethics. I have never understood why technical discussions of Objectivism are less appropriate in sci.philosophy.tech than those of other philosophies. However, the propriety of Objectivist postings on a given newsgroup is not the issue. It has become increasingly clear that a newsgroup specifically for discussions on Objectivism is needed. Objectivist postings to sci. philosophy.tech bother the others on that subgroup, for whatever reason. The only way to be sure that this type of problem cannot arise again is to create a specifically Objectivist newsgroup, not ask students of the philosophy to move to a newsgroup which is more appropriate. I fear that, regardless of where students of Objectivism post, we will have to deal with people who wish to disparage our ideas. However, if we have a newsgroup of our own, we will at least be able to avoid antagonizing those who are willing to leave us alone. Joe Harris harris@portia.stanford.edu
hans@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) (01/17/90)
In article <8284@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes: > > It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that a suitable alternative >to creating a separate Objectivist newsgroup would be to have Objectivists >post to sci.philosophy.meta. In my judgement, this could only mitigate the situation temporarily; it is not a solution at all. What is needed is rec.humor.objectivism, a newsgroup where individuals who (like the author of this postings) are not impressed by Objectivism can ridicule the Objectivist postings. The `revolution' which Ayn Rand created in the minds of some people is catastrophical and least of all ethical. Her single great achievement, in my judgement, is that of getting a large number of devoted followers, the so-called `librarians'. These people find it possible to go on and on in vague terms about `the cognitive processes by which a human abstracts from perceptual data', and consequently makes possible an unprecedented number of postings in newsgroups devoted to the physical sciences and the humanities. This is why rec.humor.objectivism is justified--because the central problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is how a discussion of the relationship of perceptual data to abstract ideas (or Central America or what have you) can provide us with a good laugh. If it is true that rec.humor.funny is unused, why not dismantle it? The resulting unused newsgroup could become rec.humor.objectivism. Of course, rec.humor.funny would have to be completely gone--the name would be rec.humor.objectivism but the charter would be completely unchanged. Those who have suggested that Objectivists post to rec.humor.funny, is this acceptable? If not, why not? | Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: hans@uk.ac.ed.lfcs | LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans | University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/18/90)
In article <9001170357.AA13773@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: }In article <12987@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Greg Nowak writes: }>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings }>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. Please explain this to R.W. }>Stubblefield; perhaps he will accept this coming from a fellow }>objectivist. As of now he has refused to discuss the issue, and has }>decided for himself that his postings are appropriate there. }Now, wait a minute. The chronology of events is like this. Mr. }Stubblefield posted to sci.philosophy.tech judging it to be the most }appropriate newsgroup for his postings relating to Objectivism because }he could not find any other newsgroup appropriate for it. Then there }was the suggestion to start a new newsgroup for postings related to }Objectivism in sci.philosophy.tech. The call for discussion was for Welcome to usenet. Your chronology is faulty. It lacks a front end. Mr. Stubblefield began posting to sci.philosopy.tech MONTHS ago. He was informed that his postings were inappropriate there by several people who were around for the newsgroup's creation, and knew that it was for discussion of "technical applications of philosophy to science". (Eg, metalogic, formal languages) It was suggested that objectivist discussions, being philosophical, and not otherwise having their own newsgroup, belonged in talk.philosophy.misc, or the objectivist mailing lists. It later developed that Stubblefield had been on these lists and departed due to some squabble. At any rate, he continued to post his inappropriate articles to sci.philosophy.tech. }talk.philosophy.objectivism and I suggested that it should be }sci.philosophy.objectivism and then you suggested that objectivists }should post to sci.philosophy.meta and hence my post quoted above. I }didn't say anything about where Mr. Stubblefield's postings should go }and that is not the issue being discussed. The issue is creating SPO. The issue is where objectivist postings belong. If they don't belong in sci.philosophy.meta, fine, I'll agree to that the minute they're rooted out of sci.philosophy.tech. Until there is an explicitly objectivist newsgroup, such articles belong in talk.philosophy.misc, not sci.philosophy.tech. (Note that the newsgroup we're discussing this in is news.groups, ie for any articles relating to newsgroups, not just to ones discussing their creation.) }We are asking for SPO because there seems to be some support from it }even from people who oppose objectivism. That has little to do with }whether Mr. Stubblefield should post on SPT right now or not. Mucxh of the support of non-objectivists for your group would evaporate if it did not also guarantee the disappearance of objectivist postings from sci.philosophy.tech. }>There is almost no activity there; the only articles I found in its }>spool directory were those in the widely-crossposted "proving programs }>correct" thread. Of course, the story you tell is exactly the case }>with sci.philosophy.tech, an active newsgroup which has been invaded }>by inappropriate objectivist postings, mainly coming from RW Stubblefield. }I have been reading that newsgroup for a while and there was a big }discussion about "I do not exist" (!!!???). Then, suddenly, it }subsided and there were some postings off and on till the subject you }mention. In any event, that is not relevant. The discussion going on Sci.philosophy.meta is effectively empty; it has no regular discussion and no native constituency. Its only content is articles crossposted to it from other newsgroups. It is highly relevant to the newsgroups issue of where objectivist postings belong. They certainly do not belong in sci.philosophy.tech -- and objectivists desirous of their own newsgroup could do well to signal their good faith by immediately ceasing their unwarranted invasion of sci.philosophy.tech. }here was about creating a new newsgroup called }sci.philosophy.objectivism. Posting to sci.philosophy.meta is just a }temporary solution. We would like a newsgroup to discuss Objectivism. Fine. Please adopt the temporary solution until we can put the permanent one into place. That's what being "temporary" means, isn't it? Posting to sci.philosophy.tech isn't even a temporary solution, since it clearly bothers the native population, and doesn't serve any good that sci.philosophy.meta doesn't serve. Please explain why a _temporary_ move of objectivist discussions to sci.philosophy.meta is worse than leaving them in 'tech. }You also mentioned in your reply to Joe Harris that it would take six }weeks to establish sci.philosophy.objectivism. Quite true. But it }would establish a newsgroup for Objectivism and it would be a permanent }solution. (BTW, Objectivism would prefer this latter solution because }it is long range as opposed to the pragmatic version of it :-) Again, why don't you demonstrate your good faith, and perhaps earn some support, by implementing the _temporary_ solution as a _temporary_ measure until the permanent solution can be implememented? It seems better to do that than to spend at least six weeks having no solution at all. ...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/18/90)
In article <8321@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes: } In article <12986@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU } (Gregory Nowak) writes: }>Please explain to all of us...why }>sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for }>objectivist postings. }>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings }>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. } } As far as I can tell, neither sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta }is inappropriate for Objectivist postings. All the postings to sci.philosophy. }tech by Objectivists have been technical, scientific expositions, from my }postings on the sciences of mathematics and physics to other postings on }the science of ethics. I have never understood why technical discussions }of Objectivism are less appropriate in sci.philosophy.tech than those of other }philosophies. There is no "technical discussion of other philosophies" in 'tech. You misunderstand the newsgroup. If you see no distinction between posting objectivist articles to 'meta and to 'tech, please perform a courtesy for those who do see a distinction, and are bothered by their appearance in 'tech, by posting them to 'meta. The reason that they are inappropriate is that 'tech is not for "technical, scientific, expositions": leaving aside the fact that ethics is not a science, sci.philosophy.tech was created explicitly for discussing "technical applications of philosophy to science". The charter ruled out explicitly general maunderings known as philosophy of science, (eg Kuhnian stuff), and gave examples of appropriate topics as metalogic, formal languages, etc. The phrase "technical philosophy" has a specific meaning; you can't just make up your own. There may in fact be "technical discussions of Objectivism", but they aren't appropriate to sci.philosophy.tech; right now, they belong in talk.philosophy.misc. If objectivism has a position on the issue of higher cardinals, then that would be an appropriate discussion of a facet of objectivism in 'tech. What we have now is a complete exposition of Objectivism in 'tech on the shaky ground that "it's a technical philosophy" (irrelevant) "it makes ethics a science" (irrelevant) or "it discusses science too" (also irrelevant). } However, the propriety of Objectivist postings on a given newsgroup is }not the issue. It has become increasingly clear that a newsgroup specifically }for discussions on Objectivism is needed. Objectivist postings to sci. }philosophy.tech bother the others on that subgroup, for whatever reason. Because they're inappropriate there, as we've been saying for months. }The only way to be sure that this type of problem cannot arise again is to }create a specifically Objectivist newsgroup, not ask students of the philosophy }to move to a newsgroup which is more appropriate. It may be true that this is the only permanent solution. Until this happy day comes to pass, could the objectivists indicate their good faith by departing 'tech, where they are an annoyance, and temporarily moving to sci.philosophy.meta, where they will bother no one, since there is no one there to bother? You yourself said you saw no distinction in appropriateness of objectivist postings to the two groups. So why not perform a courtesy over which you have no qualms? } I fear that, regardless of where students of Objectivism post, we will }have to deal with people who wish to disparage our ideas. However, if we }have a newsgroup of our own, we will at least be able to avoid antagonizing }those who are willing to leave us alone. Gracious of you to note the distinction. If you moved into 'meta as a stopgap measure, you could avoid antagonizing those who are willing to leave you alone as early as tomorrow. ...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/18/90)
In article <13004@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> greg@phoenix.princeton.edu (Greg Nowak) writes: >}Now, wait a minute. The chronology of events is like this. Mr. >}Stubblefield posted to sci.philosophy.tech judging it to be the most >}appropriate newsgroup for his postings relating to Objectivism because >}he could not find any other newsgroup appropriate for it. Then there >}was the suggestion to start a new newsgroup for postings related to >}Objectivism in sci.philosophy.tech. The call for discussion was for >Welcome to usenet. Your chronology is faulty. It lacks a front end. >Mr. Stubblefield began posting to sci.philosopy.tech MONTHS ago. He >was informed that his postings were inappropriate there by several >people who were around for the newsgroup's creation, and knew that it >was for discussion of "technical applications of philosophy to >science". (Eg, metalogic, formal languages) It was suggested that >objectivist discussions, being philosophical, and not otherwise having >their own newsgroup, belonged in talk.philosophy.misc, or the >objectivist mailing lists. It later developed that Stubblefield had >been on these lists and departed due to some squabble. At any rate, he >continued to post his inappropriate articles to sci.philosophy.tech. You're saying that Mr. Stubblefield's postings are not appropriate to SPT as if this was a matter of fact when that is what you (and some other readers of SPT) think. There have been some discussions related to his postings and even some support (some others also thought it was inappropriate, however). I am not going to get into this argument of whether objectivist postings belong to SPT or not. I think they do and you think they don't. In any event, this newsgroup is for the discussion of new newsgroups (at least as far as I can tell). The discussion was for the creation of a newsgroup relating to objectivism. You're bringing up an issue that does not belong here and I am not going to contiue along those lines. -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
spok@gs6.sp.cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) (01/18/90)
In article <4M410G2xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Also, if any philosophy is included under sci, then it's only >fair that this one be, also. Why? I had thought (judging from its description in the newsgroups list) that the rationale for 'tech being in sci.* was that it was supposed to deal with philosophy relating to science and math. From what I've read of Objectivism, it does not relate to science and math any more than do other general philosophies, so I would think an Objectivism newsgroup would go in the same hierarchy as the general philosophy newsgroup-- talk. Would someone care to enlighten me on why 'objectivism should go in sci instead of talk or one of the other hierarchies? John Ockerbloom -- ========================================================================== ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom ocker@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded) 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/18/90)
In article <9001172032.AA18989@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: }You're saying that Mr. Stubblefield's postings are not appropriate to }SPT as if this was a matter of fact when that is what you (and some }other readers of SPT) think. Sure. All the original readers of SPT, those who were there for its creation and remember the charter, find them inappropriate. Those "readers" of SPT who followed Stubblefield think otherwise. They lose. They don't know what they're talking about. At any rate -- you're undercutting your own position. The extent to which objectivist postings are appropriate in SPT is the extent to which they don't deserve a new group. BTW, we're BOTH in favor of a new group for Objectivist postings -- anything to get them out of SPT where they don't belong } There have been some discussions related }to his postings and even some support (some others also thought it was }inappropriate, however). I am not going to get into this argument of }whether objectivist postings belong to SPT or not. I think they do and }you think they don't. If they do, why do you need a new newsgroup? IF they don't, get them out. } In any event, this newsgroup is for the }discussion of new newsgroups (at least as far as I can tell). The I'll tell you again: Welcome to USENET. This is news.groups, for discussion of all issues relating to newsgroups, whether they're new or now, what postings are appropriate where, whatever. It so happens that a lot of the discussion is given over to discussion of new newsgroups, but that's not the only thing it's for. I'm sorry you have a hard time grasping this, but it seem that Objectivists in general have a hard time grasping the concept of appropriateness of topics within newsgroups. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "Most news readers are not UNIX sophisticates and do not have the capability of using KILL files or even know that such a thing is possible." -- Tim Maroney
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/19/90)
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) writes: >Over 90% of the objectivist postings to 'tech have been his. Those of >us who are only interested in getting objectivist postings out of 'tech >can't see why they are less appropriate in 'meta than in 'tech. If this is true, put that person in your KILL file and don't worry about it. People don't post to the ether and will go away when they stop getting responses. -Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/19/90)
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) writes: >Mr. [whoever] began posting to sci.philosopy.tech MONTHS ago. He >was informed that his postings were inappropriate there by several >people who were around for the newsgroup's creation, and knew that it >was for discussion of "technical applications of philosophy to >science". (Eg, metalogic, formal languages) It was suggested that >objectivist discussions, being philosophical, and not otherwise having >their own newsgroup, belonged in talk.philosophy.misc, or the >objectivist mailing lists. Yes, they should go in a .misc group, but until they do you have two choices: 1) put the objectivists in your KILL file. The group, for you, becomes much quieter. 2) Flame the objectivists in email until they leave. Flaming them with postings will put YOU in people's KILL files. -Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/19/90)
In article <1990Jan17.083725.1215@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes >In article <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes: >: I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci >: hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism. >This is a bad idea. If for no other reason, it is impracticable: >creating a talk group is barely possible, creating a sci group is >not at all possible. But the real reason is that an Objectivism >group does not belong in sci. Let's look at the definitions (from >the news.announce.newusers monthly postings): >"sci" Discussions intended as technical in nature and relating > to the established sciences. >On the evidence, an Objectivism discussion group would not be >"technical in nature". Judging from discussions in the mailing >lists and various newsgroups, most of the discussions would be >very general. Or, worse, would mostly consist of head butting. In >any case, I don't think the word "technical" would be generally >applicable to discussions in the group. Care to explain why an Objectivism discussion group would not be technical in nature? There can be a charter which specifies that the discussion should be techincal in nature. As to flames, there are several unmoderated newsgroup in the sci hierarchy where there are not too many flames. >Objectivism pretty much fails the second test, too. Like any >philosophy, it has something to say *about* science, but that is a >very small part of Objectivism. Putting it in sci would only make >sense if the discussion were mostly limited to that part of >Objectivism which has to do with the philosophy of science. No, not true. A look a the "sci" hierarchy reveals newsgroups like sci.psychology, sci.lang, sci.econ. Can you tell me what have these got to do with the philosophy of science? The quote about sci distribution says "established sciences". All major universities have departments of philosophies. Can you explain why philosophy is not a science? The notion that philosophy is a game played by ivory tower intellectuals is recent and it is sad that that has become the state of one of the most important field of human knowledge. All the major philsophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Spinoza, Liebniz Kant, Hegel etc. regarded philsophy as a very systematic and important field of thought and having fundamental impact on human life. The whole school of Rationalists attempted to model philosophical systems on mathematics and science (such philosophers as Liebniz for example). They were correct in regarding philosophy as a science. If you think it is not, please explain why. There is already a hierarchy sci.philosophy and quite properly so. All complete systems of philosophies are just as much rigorous and involved and technical as the major sciences. Some great minds have devoted their lives to this field of thought. One belittles their achievements by not regarding philosophy to be a science. The discussion in sci.philosophy.objectivism, if it is formed, would be technical. It would discuss the technical aspects of Objectivism. This should also be beneficial to objectivists as they will learn about the details of objectivism. I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should go under sci distribution. If you can show otherwise, I would be interested in hearing what you have to say. -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
garm@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Garmong) (01/19/90)
I strongly support the establishment of sci.philosophy.objectivism. Ayn Rand's philosophy is a complete philosophy, in that it deals with all the major branches of philosophy, and not with a few out-of-context ideas. As such, it is not easily discussed in any compartmentalized forum. As most readers of USENET know, those discussions of Objectivism which take place on such groups as alt.individualism or talk.politics.theory are usually shallow, at best. Those few who attempt to discuss Objectivism in such limited groups usually get it wrong, drastically misrepresenting the philosophy, and even those who get it right can hardly accomplish anything, in the context of a restrictive net. This means that those Objectivists who read and occassionally post to USENET have been unable to find an appropriate forum for their discussions. A few have gone to sci.philosophy.tech, with limited success, and met with great hostility from the "locals" there. Others have given up on posting entirely, and some whom I know never have posted at all (myself included). The only remedy for this is the creation of sci.philosophy.objectivism. The Objectivist newsgroup would not belong in the talk.* hierarchy, because the discussions would not be talk.* discussions. The fact that Objectivism is a complete philosophy has an important implication in this context: Objectivism is complete, in that it deals with every branch of philosophy, and has important implications for every aspect of human life, all based on one consistent, integrated philosophic framework. This means that it is essential to study the fundamentals of the philosophy, rather than focusing on the details of application. All of Objectivism is based on an integrated set of principles, which one must first understand, if one is to see its applications to any given concrete situation or event. It is not inappropriate to study concrete examples--in fact, it is essential to gaining a grasp of the fundamental principles of Objectivism. However, it is the principles of philosophy, the core of the subject, which must be mastered and studied before one can begin to talk about derivative issues, such as details of political systems or esthetics. This is a _technical_ study, scientific in nature. It is a systematic process of gathering data, grasping its significance, and developing an understanding of the world on the basis of that knowledge. What could more deserve the title of science than that? Lastly, the group should be unmoderated. No one person should be put in the position of deciding what should and should not be posted as a part of a discussion of a complex system of ideas. The level of knowledge of the philosophy of Objectivism required for such an undertaking would be immense. What is or is not appropriate? What is germaine to the issues at hand, and what is irrelevant? What is a flame, and what is a reasoned (if impassioned) criticism of another person's ideas? If there were anyone reading USENET who had the level of knowledge of Objectivism required to make such decisions, would he want to be sifting through the mountains of postings which he would have to read each day? His time would be better spent doing his own work than moderating a discussion forum on the philosophy of Objectivism. --Robert Garmong Undergraduate economics student, The University of Chicago
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/19/90)
In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: [...] >I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should >go under sci distribution. If you can show otherwise, I would be >interested in hearing what you have to say. The premier modern discriminator between science and non-science is that a science must produce hypotheses/theorems which are "falsifiable"; in the context of the current discussion, that means that if I produce _one_ instance in which your system/theory demonstrably fails, you will stop arguing with me that it is right, go away, and fix it. This is not a characteristic of any system of philosophy of which I am aware. Instead, into the teeth of massive demonstrations of error, the true believers continue to espouse their "inerrant" faith. Regard any discussion on the net for corroberation, the current one in news.groups, for instance. I suggest that the group, if it is created, after the model of talk.bizarre, to give a group of pain-in-the-neck posters a place, any place, to post away from the "in crowd", not be created in the "sci" heirarchy. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (greg Nowak) (01/20/90)
In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu>, mehuld@APEE (Mehul Dave) writes: >Care to explain why an Objectivism discussion group would not be >technical in nature? It certainly can be. One can also have a technical discussion of poetry or choreography or whatever, but that doesn't make it science. You're conflating two different meanings of technical. >No, not true. A look a the "sci" hierarchy reveals newsgroups like >sci.psychology, sci.lang, sci.econ. Can you tell me what have these >got to do with the philosophy of science? Nothing. But psychology is a science -- it talks about the cognitive processes that allow humans to abstract from perceptual data, so it _has_ to be a science, right? (Don't forget that clinical psychiatry is taught in the med schools, not in the science depts.) You don't have to talk about philosophy of science to be a science, or to be in the science hierarchy. >The quote about sci >distribution says "established sciences". All major universities >have departments of philosophies. Can you explain why philosophy is >not a science? Well, it doesn't use the scientific method, it doesn't conduct experiments, it isn't progressive (warning: this is a technical term in the sociology of knowledge, which I expect you to misunderstand and hence flame me for using)... do you need more? >The notion that philosophy is a game played by ivory >tower intellectuals is recent and it is sad that that has become the >state of one of the most important field of human knowledge. All Boo hoo. Philosophy need not be designated a science to avoid the slur that it is merely a game. >the major philsophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Spinoza, >Liebniz Kant, Hegel etc. regarded philsophy as a very systematic and >important field of thought and having fundamental impact on human >life. A lot of people feel the same way about religion. That doesn't make it a science. >The whole school of Rationalists attempted to model philosophical >systems on mathematics and science (such philosophers as Liebniz for >example). They were correct in regarding philosophy as a science. No, they were calling science "philosophy" as a shorthand which later became expanded to "natural philosophy" to distinguish what we now know as science from what we know as philosophy. There was a guy named Newton who you may have heard of who was quite careful to keep the two separate. >If you think it is not, please explain why. They were not under the delusion that something has to be called a "science" in order to be regarded as worthwhile. [Gene,, PLEASE get Matthew back on the net! What have they done to my newsgroup, ma? and all that...] >There is already a hierarchy sci.philosophy and quite properly so. Right. And objectivist postings don't belong anywhere in it. >All complete systems of philosophies are just as much rigorous and >involved and technical as the major sciences. So is the construction of sonnets and sestinas. This doesn't make poetry a science. You're confusing a few necessary features of science with a complete definition. >Some great minds have >devoted their lives to this field of thought. One belittles their >achievements by not regarding philosophy to be a science. I think we can let them speak for that. Most of the philosophers I know would be damn-near insulted to be told that they're doing science. The others would be amused -- why should they limit themselves to such a small toolkit? If you want to generalize about philosophers on this point, you should talk to ones who aren't objectivists. >discussion in sci.philosophy.objectivism, if it is formed, would be >technical. It would discuss the technical aspects of Objectivism. That doesn't make it a science any more than discussing Bach fugues technically makes music a science. >I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should >go under sci distribution. If you can show otherwise, I would be >interested in hearing what you have to say. You've told a lot of stories about famous philosophers who would be insulted if they were told they weren't doing science. Historical evidence suggests otherwise. Why don't you give your detailed definition of science? My bet is you'd be hard pressed to define science in such a way as to include all the established sciences, and objectivivism, while ruling out, say, ethics and metaethics, ontology, and so on, branches of "philosophy" which NO philosopher considers to be science, and also ruling out the Bhagwan and a lot of other crazies. Not to mention the talk.religion.pagan folks, who also have a system of knowledge dealing with the natural world... the list goes on. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "In addition I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts. Namely, the physical universe." --Ken Jenkins
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/20/90)
I love it! From an objectivist, we have: objectivism is a deep and full philosophy, yet whenever it is discussed on the net, the discussions are inevitably shallow and meaningless, and therefore IT IS THE NET'S FAULT! And he took PAGES to say it! Choke, gasp, wheeze! Excuse me, a person with my respiratory problems shouldn't allow himself to laugh that hard. I'll be all right in a little while, really I will! VOTE blather.philosophy.objectivism NOW, an idea whose time has come! Whooooeee! -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) (01/21/90)
In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: >Some great minds have >devoted their lives to this field of thought. One belittles their >achievements by not regarding philosophy to be a science. Now why on earth is this? Do we belittle Shakespeare's achievements by not regarding his plays as works of science? >All >the major philsophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Spinoza, >Liebniz Kant, Hegel etc. regarded philsophy as a very systematic and >important field of thought and having fundamental impact on human life. >The whole school of Rationalists attempted to model philosophical >systems on mathematics and science (such philosophers as Liebniz for >example). They were correct in regarding philosophy as a science. >If you think it is not, please explain why. It's a blatant anachronism to attribute a view of what was or was not "science" to Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz etc. It's only in recent times that we find people insisting on philosophy being a "science". In my own experience, I encountered an undergraduate who wanted to be sure that philosophy was "science" around 1975. Among professional philosophers, I know of nobody who feels "belittled" by not being regarded as working in "science". It is only in fringe groups like the Objectivists or the Scientologists that one encounters this kind of insistence on being "scientific". On the other hand, I submit that there is no reason why the Objectivists should not be allowed to style themselves sci.philosophy.objectivism or sci.rational.uncompromising. objectivism, or whatever they please. It's been said that the sci category should not be "polluted" by purportedly scientific talk about fish or about Ayn Rand, but I can't see that this is any big deal.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/21/90)
> Summary: Objectivism is a complete philosophy, deserving of an unmoderated > discussion group in the sci.* hierarchy. I suspect that it passes the acid test of philosophy. But it doesn't pass the acid test of being a science. Science is, if you want to look at it that way, a subset of philosophy with a certain set of ground-rules. Those philosophies that don't use those ground-rules don't belong in sci. Objectivism, despite the quote in Gene Smith's signature, doesn't appear to be one of the 'natural philosophies'. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) (01/23/90)
In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: > A look a the "sci" hierarchy reveals newsgroups like >sci.psychology, sci.lang, sci.econ. Can you tell me what have these >got to do with the philosophy of science? The quote about sci >distribution says "established sciences". All major universities >have departments of philosophies. Can you explain why philosophy is >not a science? The notion that philosophy is a game played by ivory >tower intellectuals is recent and it is sad that that has become the state of one of the most important field of human knowledge. All >the major philsophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Spinoza, >Liebniz Kant, Hegel etc. regarded philsophy as a very systematic and >important field of thought and having fundamental impact on human life. >The whole school of Rationalists attempted to model philosophical >systems on mathematics and science (such philosophers as Liebniz for >example). They were correct in regarding philosophy as a science. >If you think it is not, please explain why. > >I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should >go under sci distribution. If you can show otherwise, I would be >interested in hearing what you have to say. Let's first distinguish two different points. With the first, concerning the cited above groups (I could include sci.edu, sci.philosophy.meta and some others), I would agree that they seem a little misappropriate in the sci hierarchy (though I appreciate their presence here). The second one is that, at least under my opinion, the whole distinction between "science" (dealing with what you can measure, reproduce in experiment or build in hardware etc.) versus "arts" is a little behind - some 18th century epistemology. Anyway, this distinction (in German it's "Naturwissenschaft" - science of nature - vs. "Geisteswissenschaft" - science of mind - ; I like that more, because it doesn't deny the serious- ness of the other branches of knowledge, IMHO the english term "arts" does) exists as well in the academic field as in the Usenet. On the other hand, I don't blame anybody insisting in that sytematic distinction (unless she/he explicitly expresses that) to regard philosophy, social sciences or other fields of human thought as non-serious or irrelevant. On the Usenet itself, I regret that there is no hierarchy which reflects those parts of academic thought and research. Simply putting those topics under soc, alt or talk seems a poor solution to me, too. Anyway, anything different would require a very deep revision of the structure of the news system. Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad idea. Any comments? > >-- >--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) > regards, es (sanio@netmbx.uucp es@athen.uucp)
es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) (01/23/90)
In article <10507@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: >[...] >>I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should > >The premier modern discriminator between science and non-science is >that a science must produce hypotheses/theorems which are >"falsifiable"; in the context of the current discussion, that means >that if I produce _one_ instance in which your system/theory >demonstrably fails, you will stop arguing with me that it is right, go >away, and fix it. > >This is not a characteristic of any system of philosophy of which I am >aware. Instead, into the teeth of massive demonstrations of error, >the true believers continue to espouse their "inerrant" faith. Regard >any discussion on the net for corroberation, the current one in >news.groups, for instance. > Let me point out first that I share the opinion that the group xxx.philos.o'ism doesnt fit into the sci hierarchy. To the rest, I disagree. The criterion of "falsifiability" reflects the view of just one branch of the epistemological discussion, that of positivism (Popper et alii). Other epistemological schools share it only up to a certain amount, or even reject it as less useful or even meaningless. In fact, the systematics of "science" and "arts" in the academic field existed long before positivism. IMHO, falsification is an important access to academic reasoning, as well in fields which are clearly not "science" (sociology, history etc), but it isn't all even in "science". Try to apply it to medicine, psychology, education, economy and you are doomed to failure. >-- Concerning your "true believers" argument:did you follow the Beckmann discussion in sci.physics or cold fusion arguments? I'm not expert enough to decide who was right or wrong in all details, but in result I could say : "Hey, at least one of the factions (or both) ignore massive demonstrations of error". Read the history of science, and you will learn that ignorance and dogmatism don't end at the borders of "science". And, by the way, the criterion you cite as the decisive discriminator (falsi- fiability) was developed in a "non-scientific" branch, sociology. Any comments? >Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. So are mine > >xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) regards, es es@athen.uucp sanio@netmbx.uucp (Erhard Sanio)
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/25/90)
In article <6534@yunexus.UUCP>, gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) writes: > harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes: > > | The revolution which Ayn Rand created in philosophy was primarily > | epistemological, not political or ethical. > Well, let's nip this in the bud. Ayn Rand's 'revolution in > philosophy' has had practically no effect at all in 20th century > epistemology and of 50 philosophy departments in North America if > there are 10 philosophers doing serious work in her epistemology, I'd > be surprised. I suspect there are at least that many, since it seems that more than that many are seeing print with their views on the subject, both pro and wrong. {|8^)] But that's not relevant. Whether *any* work is correct or valuable cannot be judged by how popular it is. After all, only a minority of people in the British Empire in 1776 approved of The Declaration of Independence! Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/25/90)
In article <899@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes >On the other hand, I don't blame anybody insisting in that sytematic >distinction (unless she/he explicitly expresses that) to regard philosophy, >social sciences or other fields of human thought as non-serious or irrelevant. >On the Usenet itself, I regret that there is no hierarchy which reflects those >parts of academic thought and research. Simply putting those topics under soc, >alt or talk seems a poor solution to me, too. Agreed. That's not a good solution. >Anyway, anything different would require a very deep revision of the structure >of the news system. Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad idea. >Any comments? As you say, this would require a very deep revision of structure of the news system. Besides, some of the social sciences such as psychology, economics, education etc. have been already placed in the "sci" hierarchy so sci is not fully restricted only to the physical sciences. It, therefore, seems proper to include philosophy also under the sci hierarchy. I also think that if there is sufficient interest in other philosophies such as, positivism for example, a newsgroup such as sci.philosophy.positivism would be proper (if it was intended for a technical discussion of positivism). >regards, es (sanio@netmbx.uucp es@athen.uucp) -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/25/90)
[The only _possible_ excuse for continuing this discussion in news.groups is that it still, marginally, pertains to the question of whether *philosopy.objectivism should have "*" replaced by "sci".] In article <900@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes: =In article <10507@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: =>In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: =>[...] =>>I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should => =>The premier modern discriminator between science and non-science is =>that a science must produce hypotheses/theorems which are =>"falsifiable"; in the context of the current discussion, that means =>that if I produce _one_ instance in which your system/theory =>demonstrably fails, you will stop arguing with me that it is right, go =>away, and fix it. => =>This is not a characteristic of any system of philosophy of which I am =>aware. Instead, into the teeth of massive demonstrations of error, =>the true believers continue to espouse their "inerrant" faith. Regard =>any discussion on the net for corroberation, the current one in =>news.groups, for instance. => =Let me point out first that I share the opinion that the group xxx.philos.o'ism =doesnt fit into the sci hierarchy. At least we have the beginnings of a basis for further agreements! ;-) =To the rest, I disagree. The criterion of "falsifiability" reflects =the view of just one branch of the epistemological discussion, that =of positivism (Popper et alii). Other epistemological schools share =it only up to a certain amount, or even reject it as less useful or =even meaningless. Sorry, but no. I guess I should have said "The premier modern discriminator _among scientists_...", but that leads immediately to a circularity problem, since it is exactly the question of who constitute "scientists", that we are trying to answer here. I am profoundly uninterested in what the philosophers of knowledge have to say about science. I am profoundly interested in what the scientists whose science leads to successful and practical results have to say. Falsifiability is, for example, the basis on which "creation science" is rejected _as a science_ by the vast majority of science practitioners. By design, "creation science" avoids positing testable arguments, and instead its proponents spend their intellectual resources explaining away contradictory evidence. =In fact, the systematics of "science" and "arts" in =the academic field existed long before positivism. IMHO, =falsification is an important access to academic reasoning, as well =in fields which are clearly not "science" (sociology, history etc), =but it isn't all even in "science". Try to apply it to medicine, =psychology, education, economy and you are doomed to failure. Sorry, no. The statement of the falsifiable hypothesis must be made a little more carefully in fields where the evidence is statistical rather than capable of a direct test, but each of these sciences uses falsifiability directly in research every day. For example, in medicine: For a sample of statistically significant size, we can state with a 95% confidence level that the application of anti-melanoma protocol A will lead to a five year survival rate 30% higher than protocol B, a placebo protocol, all medically significant other variables being controlled for by random sampling of the test cohorts. is testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Confirmation testing by independent researchers of unexpected results are normal medical research practice. If more that 1 of 20 such tests fails, the hypothesis is rejected. Behavioralists have used falsifiable hypothesis since Pavalov was a little boy with a pet cocker spaniel. For example: In a Skinner box, with 95% confidence, a pigeon trained to peck a triangle in preference to a circle to elicit food will fail to extinguish that behavior (despite its unprofitable calorie budget) as long as at least one food pellet is elicited for every 300 pecks, to starvation. is a classic, testable, falsifiable hypothesis. (Whether it is _true_ or not, I have no idea!) Similarly, in education: For a sample of statistically significant size, we can state with a 95% confidence level that the application of Head Start programs will lead to a 1.2 year level improvement in reading skills tested at completion of grade three, against a cohort of children not given Head Start training, control being exerted for other causitive factors by random selection. Economics has some problems controlling for "other things being equal", but, for example, "decreasing the tax burden on a governmental units' population will lead to increased well being and prosperity" has been massively disproved by the California experience, and _honest_ economists are beginning to realize that a taxation rate that allows for maintenance of the economic infrastructure is indeed essential to well being and prosperity. This does not justify waste of tax resources, but it does seem to defend proper use of them. =>-- =Concerning your "true believers" argument: did you follow the Beckmann =discussion in sci.physics or cold fusion arguments? No, but I followed it in the popular and scientific press. =I'm not expert enough to decide who was right or wrong in all =details, but in result I could say : "Hey, at least one of the =factions (or both) ignore massive demonstrations of error". Sorry, no. It is certainly likely that one or several experiments were poorly thought out or poorly designed. The potential rewards, in terms of benefit to humankind, personal prestige, and personal economic gains, were so great as to promote "fast science", a fairly chancy proposition at best. Nevertheless, the cold fusion example (and by the way, _confirming_ experiments are still being reported, among other locales, from within the Soviet Union, so there is still hope remaining) _exemplifies_ falsifiability; the result reported by the Utah experimenters was so unexpected that numerous laboratories, worldwide, immediately attempted to confirm or falsify it. That the experiment was 1) extremely dependent on poorly documented features of the experimental apparatus, 2) very difficult to perform, 3) quite dangerous, and 4) involved several poorly integrated branches of science (fast and slow neutron detection, atomic mass spectroscopy for tritium byproducts, and thermal budget balance, among others), led to a (continuing to this day) series of inconsistent results, which is why the attempt to confirm or falsify the result _decisively_ and _repeatably_ is still ongoing; the science, and the example of falsifiability as a method of science, is exactly what is wanted for science to work, however painful (in terms of expense and blemished reputations) the process might be. =Read the history of science, and you will learn that ignorance and =dogmatism don't end at the borders of "science". Not to mention greed, charlatinism (sp?), and a host of other human ills. It is to combat human frailities that the peer review system of science exists. That it is fueled more by self interest than by altruism is usually true; that it works anyway is a fine compliment to the strength of the basic paradigm. =And, by the way, the criterion you cite as the decisive discriminator =(falsifiability) was developed in a "non-scientific" branch, =sociology. The _single_ sociology class I've ever taken left me the impression of a science just waiting for a suitable set of test subjects. I think that sociology is doomed to be a science on the model of astronomy; no experiments allowed, but any hypothesis presented can be falsified by appealing to the observational record for contradictory evidence, and tentatively confirmed by confirming evidence, the lack of contradictory evidence, and an appeal to Occam's razor to assure that the hypothesis is useful/necessary to explain the observations. Since astronomy has progressed by leaps and bounds using such relatively unsuitable tools, perhaps sociology can do a "go thou and do likewise" act. =Any comments? I must be a stranger to you; this question referenced to the man from xanth is eminently superfluous, as hundreds of USENetters will gladly, (and occasionally loudly and angrily) testify! ;-) =>Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. =So are mine => =>xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) = =regards, es es@athen.uucp sanio@netmbx.uucp (Erhard Sanio) -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (01/26/90)
In article <8321@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes: >As far as I can tell, neither sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta >is inappropriate for Objectivist postings. Everyone seems to have forgotten this, but way back when .meta was first created someone asked about Objectivism there, was told that the group was inappropriate and that they should try talk.phil.misc, and that was then end of it. No endless discussions. >All the postings to sci.philosophy.tech by Objectivists have been technical, >scientific expositions, from my postings on the sciences of mathematics and >physics to other postings on the science of ethics. I have never understood >why technical discussions of Objectivism are less appropriate in >sci.philosophy.tech than those of other philosophies. Sci.phil.tech is not for technical discussions of philosophy but for technical philosophy, which is meant to be something else. Several people have explained this already. Some people have pointed out that sci.phil.tech includes philosophy of science. (I agree.) But that doesn't mean that all philosophical discussion of everything that might be claimed to be a science is appropriate. It is far from clear to me that all the Objectivist postings in sci.phil.tech have been appropriate. Consider, for example, the one entitled "Philosophy and Current Trends in Communist Countries". The article is basically a political commentary with some philosophy of history thrown in. Sure, the article claims philosophical ideas are the "most important causal factors in history", and the article's written from that perspective. But that doesn't make it technical philosophy. If it spent more time on this philosophy of history, maybe it would be; but it doesn't. -- Jeff
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (01/26/90)
In article <900@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes: >Concerning your "true believers" argument:did you follow the Beckmann >discussion in sci.physics or cold fusion arguments? Did you look at the current state of the Beckmann discussion? The main defender of Beckmann's theory says he now regards it as faslified until he can see how it deals with a certain problem raised on the net. And much of that discussion concerned experiments, falsification, etc.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/29/90)
Certain Objectivists have, among many, a standard accusation:
they'll accuse you of "equivocating" when you don't use a word
they way the want you to.
This time, however, the shoe is on the other foot. The position
for sci rests on an equivocation between two definitions of the
word "science".
The definition of science they are relying on is `organized body
of knowledge'. Yes, it is a valid definition. And yes, Objectivism
is an organized body of knowledge. So, in that sense, Objectivism
is a science. So also is creation science. Ugh.
The other definition of science, the one that is operative in the
sci hierarchy, is the science of "science and technology".
Obviously, no general philosophy, including Objectivism, qualifies
under that definition of science.
I doubt that the Objectivists who are equivocating will be paying
any attention, so you can expect to see more debate wherein they
continue to assert that Objectivism is a science. Regardless of
the irrelevancy of that point.
Since that point has been adequately dealt with, there is no
further reason for answering them. However, for those that do,
please feel free to borrow my signature quote. :-)
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_demodsb@iitmax.IIT.EDU (David Bombardier) (01/29/90)
Several individuals have stated that those of us who support placing the proposed Objectivist newsgroup in the sci hierarchy have not justified our position. In fact, there have been lengthy justifications posted in the last few weeks. In his recent proposed charter, Bob Stubblefield gave a concise explanation for placing the newsgroup in the sci hierarchy. It has been ignored. A couple weeks ago, two lengthy postings by Robert Garmong and Mehul Dave presented excellent arguments for placing the newsgroup in the sci hierarchy. They have been largely ignored. Perhaps these individuals could re-post the sections of their postings relevant to the issue? Since the arguments for placing the newsgroup in the sci hierarchy have been presented and ignored I'm not going to present them again. But I do have a couple of related points: It is not only Ayn Rand that regarded philosophy as a science. Many philosophers have held this view, enough philosophers to make philosophy an "established" science. Perhaps some of the philosophy students on the net could provide a list of philosophers holding philosophy as a science. Fields in the humanities and social sciences that are included in the sci hiearchy include education, language, economics, psychology and philosophy (these are only the ones that come to mind immediately). Even if these groups did _not_ exist, the sci hierarchy would be the proper place for the newsgroup, given the nature of philosophy in general and Objectivism in paticular. If a hiearchy (or two) were established for the humanities and social sciences, I would not be opposed to placing the Objectivist newsgroup there. In that scenario, the sci hierarchy could exist strictly for the natural sciences. But now, the sci hiearchy is for established sciences, not strictly natural sciences. Relegating a newsgroup devoted to a serious, technical philosophy to the talk hierarchy is an injustice. There are those who disagree. This is not surprising, given the nature of their postings, whose style belongs to the talk, not the sci, hierarchy. -- David Bombardier demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu
dschein@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Dinah B. Schein) (01/29/90)
In article <8750@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: > >The man asked for EMAIL'd votes. Is this such an emotional/religious issue >that you react thusly? You can't be *objective* enough to email your vote >and then carry on the discussion here? As a matter of fact, I happened both to mail in my vote AND to post it on the net. Thus _I_ was "objective enough to email [my] vote and then to carry on the discussion here." _You_, on the other hand, immediately jumped to conclusions in the absense of evidence - hardly the proper behavior for anyone past the age of 10. Dinah Schein.
demodsb@iitmax.IIT.EDU (David Bombardier) (01/29/90)
A postscript to my posting:
I said that relegating a newsgroup devoted to a serious, technical philosophy
to the talk hierarchy was an injustice. I did not realize how much of an
injustice this would be until I took a look at what newsgroups are in the talk
hierarchy. Here is the list. (Remember that the sci hierarchy includes
fields in the humanities and social sciences.)
talk.abortion
talk.bizarre
talk.origins
talk.philosophy.misc
talk.politics.guns
talk.politics.mideast
talk.politics.misc
talk.politics.soviet
talk.politics.theory
talk.rape
talk.religion.misc
talk.religion.newage
talk.rumors
It doesn't matter what your view is concerning Objectivism or the proposed
Objectivist newsgroup to realize that the newsgroup does not belong here!
Philosophy is a serious, academic discipline. It is fundamentally dissimilar
from topics such as politics, religion, abortion, rape and rumors. (I would
say that talk.philosophy.misc is also fundamentally dissimilar from these
topics.) Placing the newsgroup in the talk hierarchy would be akin to a
university dismantling its philosophy department and creating a student
organization to replace it.
-- David Bombardier
demodsb@iitmax.iit.educash@convex.com (Peter Cash) (02/01/90)
In article <2018@cjsa.WA.COM> jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (Jeffery Small) writes: > >Philosophy n.; >...dictionary definition deleted >Science n.; >...dictionary definition deleted > >Definitions above from: "Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" - 1961 > > >Clearly, unless one wishes to rewrite the definitions and thereby distort >the meaning of any of the above terms, philosophy (as defined; often in >opposition to how it is practiced) is and must be considered a science. Clearly, this is a lesson in how a little (very little) knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The dictionary is a good place for finding superficial information about words; don't expect profundity or keen insight there. And don't expect to find an ultimate court of appeal; dictionaries sometimes disagree, and sometimes they're wrong. When Webster's talks about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely used in the very loosest sense. Science is empirical; to be scientific, a question must--at least in theory--be capable of resolution by experiment. Modern philosophy deals with precisely those questions that cannot--*even in theory*--ever be resolved through experiment. If one can devise an experiment that would solve a question, then that question is not a philosophical one. Philosophy is therefore not "scientific". I do hope you Objectivists get your very own newsgroup soon. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) | cash@convex ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) (02/02/90)
In article <0ZltB5y00Xc1MZPXZ9@andrew.cmu.edu> cr10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christopher John Rapier) writes: >About the Skepticism vs Realism debate I mentioned earlier I suggest >read Rene Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy". Great work >that attempts to provide a base for reality without presuposing the >existance of reality. Excellent philosophizing. >basically he starts by saying that if he is pondering the nature of his >own existance then he must exist to be able to do that. All things are >taken from there. Yes, but does he really go anywhere? The doubts that he raises in the First Meditation are very powerful; I doubt whether he ever really settles them. Remember, there are three kinds of doubt in the 1st Meditation: 1. Doubts about the veracity of the senses ("My senses have sometimes deceived me", so maybe they're *never* reliable) 2. The dream argument (Maybe I'm dreaming right now; maybe my whole life is a dream) 3. The Evil Genius (who can deceive Descartes about everything, even the principles of mathematics and geometry). Against these doubts, Descartes pits two insights: a. If I doubt my own existence, then I must exist. b. God exists, is good, and wouldn't fool around with me (i.e. allow me to be mistaken about really important stuff, like that the world exists, etc.) Lots of commentators have remarked on the weaknesses in Descartes' arguments, and I'm really not saying anything new when I tell you that Descartes doesn't rescue us from the skepticism into which he deliberately plungs us in the 1st M. For example, "a" doesn't prove that Descartes exists. Maybe it proves that *something* exists, or is muttering to itself, but not that the "I" exists. After all, Descartes could be wrong about so many things. Maybe he's a troglodyte that lives at the bottom of a well and dreams about being a man. Maybe he's some wraith that's come into existence for a moment, "dreams" up a life history, says to itself, "I doubt, therefore I am", and then pops out of existence again. Maybe words ("exist", "I", "doubt", "am", etc.) don't mean what Descartes thinks they do. (The Evil Genius is very powerful, remember!) Certainly, the Evil Genius could mislead Descartes about the nature of God, so "b" doesn't follow. The best tack to take is to re-examine the doubts that get Descartes started. The best analysis of these that I have ever seen is in Bourdain's commentary on the Meditations in _Objections and Replies_. (Yes, the article that the editor considers to be "utterly without merit" and that is placed last in the book.) I think that G.E.M. Anscombe edited a version of _Objections and Replies_; your library should have a copy. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) | cash@convex ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (02/03/90)
She said that he said that she said that rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) said:
-As if to prove my point, the discussion about sci vs. talk has gotten even
-sillier, to the point where people are arguing that it should be talk on the
-basis of volume alone (??!). I guarantee that the volume of SPO won't exceed
-that of several sci groups (SPT, for example).
Does this mean that if it ever approaches that volume that you'll stop
posting (to SPO)? It's about the only guarentee you can make.
Volume is a very good reason to put a group someplace. The fact that this
discussion is generating all this volume may not reflect the volume in
the final newsgroup, but it does show that people are willing to let
themselves get worked up over this topic. And that means there'll be
volume, flames and ideology bashing.
-That is one reason (though by no means the main reason) that the sci group
-will be better; that sort of thing [flaming for it's own sake] is less
-common on sci than on talk.
Only because the majority of talk groups are about politics and religion.
Just *try* and hold a quiet discussion on those topics, even with someone
you agree with. You're doomed to failure.
-Just to put some meat into this assertion, and also to start some discussion of
-the charter, I'll give a list of guidelines which should help to keep the
-overall quality of discussion on SPO high. Something like this should be
-included in the charter for SPO.
Remember that unless a group is moderated, the charter doesn't mean a thing.
Oh, and I'll make a point now that you seem to have overlooked; some places
don't have rn, and so don't have kill files.
-3) To help with (1) and (2), either develop epic self-restraint or use a kill
-file Believe me, it will make your life easier.
Thank you for trying to dictate my behaviour. What right do *you* have to
decide who's articles I should read?
-4) Never post unless you have a point that is worth making.
Pardon the polite flame: "Then why do you keep posting?" You've been
making the same argument based on the same fallacy (that people won't
post flames in a sci.* group) for some time now. Why do I keep following
up your articles? Because there are people out there who may agree with
you, and I feel it necessary to state my opinions on the topic.
Also because I think I'm one of the few people who is following most of
this discussion who doesn't care about philosophy, objective or otherwise.
Someone should be commenting on this from the viewpoint of the uninvolved
net.person.
Let me restate my beliefs, in case you think I'm biased: Philosophy in
general is a topic that can be discussed in a scientific manner. For such
a thing, a sci group is appropriate. Specific philosophies; philosophies
that will generate much discussion because people have a personal investment
in them, belong in talk, unless moderated. I look forward to a mail
response (less so to more bandwith usage).
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: dave@sco.COM -or- ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,attctc}!sco!dave
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
A newsgroup for posting lists?
Good idea? Bad idea?
mail yesvote@sco.COM last day to vote is 2/5 mail novote@sco.COMmeo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (02/03/90)
In article <3311@iitmax.IIT.EDU> demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes: |I have come to the same conclusion as Robert. The only change that has |occurred in the sci vs. talk discussion since it began is that, in general, |the proponents of talk have descended deeper into the depths of hostility and |vulgarity. And, contrary to what some may think, the method of arguing |_is_ indicative of the content. The talk proponets continue to hurl |invectives as their main method of argumentation, and scorn we sci proponents |for failing to fully prove our points, as if we had to footnote each |sentence with a philosophic treatise, a delimitation of context, and an |answer to any possible objections, while all they have to do is scream like |children that we have not done so. That could be said about you, as well, sir. And your kith & kin in this group. While this mayt seem to fall under the auspices of rational selfishness, (1) everyone who disagrees with you isn't as terminally stupid as you seem to think they are, and (2) whatever it is, objective (by ANY legitimate definition) it's not. -Miles O'bjective
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/03/90)
ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: >Astrology is based upon observations, but it is not a science. What >distinguishes natural philosophy (science) is that it has generally >accepted methods for going from observations to theories. Webster's disagrees with you. Science is defined in the dictionary more broadly than you define it, and only includes the natural sciences as one of its definitions. Astrology, which is an area of systematized knowledge, *is* a science. But that does not automatically give astrology, or Objectivism, entree into the sci hierarchy. I think it is a mistake to argue against Objectivism as a science. Webster's specificially mentions theology, sport, and *cooking* as sciences. Arguing against Objectivism by complaining that it is political seems useless to me, because *politics* is a science. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL SCIENCES GO IN SCI! Instead, the arugment should about what sciences get to go in sci. And, ideally to me, other sciences should have a place to go besides the Dumping Grounds of talk. (I agree that many topics are appropriate to the talk hierarchy. Often newsgroup proposers seek talk when they make their proposals. But it seems to me that sometimes topics get "shoved" into talk--in those instances talk acts like a catchall hierarchy for subjects because there isn't a better place to put them. I'm against "talk by default.") Based on the current system, I believe that Objectivism should go in talk. But couldn't we also look at the bigger picture--the system as it exists? It leaves lots to be desired, IMO. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "The best way out is always through." Robert Frost
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/03/90)
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: >When Webster's talks about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely >used in the very loosest sense. I would say that "science" is used in its *broadest* sense; this word seems less loaded to me. Philosophy is not natural science. But it is science. >Science is empirical; to be scientific, a >question must--at least in theory--be capable of resolution by experiment. I disagree with this statement. Empiricism is knowledge gained through observation and experience. It is a way of gaining information that may, or may not, be confirmed by experimentation. There's no requirement that it *must.* This quibbling over definitions stuff is fun. Honestly, though, and I've repeated it often enough elsewhere, the argument here is not whether philosophy is a science; the argument is over what sciences should go in sci. >philosophical one. Philosophy is therefore not "scientific". "scientific : of, relating to, or exhibiting, the methods or principles of science." I don't think of philosophy as being "scientific," either, although I definitely assert that it is a science. But I'm wondering if what's needed is for me to expand my view of what is "scientific," rather than insisting that others narrow theirs. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "The best way out is always through." Robert Frost
karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (02/03/90)
In article <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: >The response has been almost exclusively from those who get a power trip out of >flaming people, or who derive some juvenile pleasure from using dirty words in >public, or who apparently have nothing better to do than spend all day making >snide comments. ...and... >The discussion is so intellectually one-sided that it is completely un- >productive. We have made convincing arguments and have received no substantive >intellectual opposition. Among the people arguing in favor of talk.philosophy.objectivism, whom you so denigrate, are some of the most widely respected people on the net. You may have, in your opinion, received no substantive intellectual opposition. However, you have received *substantial* opposition. I will go out on a limb here and predict that you who are pushing for sci.philosophy.objectivism are going to have a hard row to hoe. And I doubt that the imperative, dismissive nature of your rhetoric is helping to win you the friends you're going to need to carry an SPO vote. Labelling opposing opinions insubstantive by fiat and personally attacking those that hold them is not science. Your remarks and those by David Bombardier and others provide the best arguments yet for the group to be called TPO. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "...as long as there is a Legion of super-Heroes, uunet!sugar!karl all else can surely be made right." -- Sensor Girl
karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (02/03/90)
David Bombardier writes: >I have already put into my global kill file a number of individuals whom I >consider to be hostile to Objectivism, several of whom call themselves >Objectivists. Embrace orthodoxy. Defend dogma. Close your mind. Objective, indeed. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "...as long as there is a Legion of super-Heroes, uunet!sugar!karl all else can surely be made right." -- Sensor Girl
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/03/90)
In article <+RH1D5xds12@ficc.uu.net>, karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > David Bombardier writes: > >I have already put into my global kill file a number of individuals whom I > >consider to be hostile to Objectivism, several of whom call themselves > >Objectivists. > > Embrace orthodoxy. > Defend dogma. > Close your mind. > > Objective, indeed. > -- "Some things you have to be dogmatic about. And some things you have to be bulldogmatic about." -- Franklin Jefferson Stiles -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
asanders@adobe.COM (02/03/90)
cash@convex.com writes: >...The dictionary is a good place for finding superficial information about >words; don't expect profundity or keen insight there...When Webster's talks >about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely used in the very loosest >sense. Science is empirical; to be scientific, a question must--at least in >theory--be capable of resolution by experiment... Personally, I have found the dictionary to be full of keen insights. The derivation of words is often especially revealing of their deeper meaning. For example: science -- from the Latin *sciens* ("having knowledge"), which is in turn from *scire* ("to know"), akin to *scindere* ("to cut"). philosophy -- from the Greek *phil-* ("loving") + *sophia* ("wisdom"). empirical -- from the Greek *empeiria* ("experience"). Mind you, I am not particularly interested in debating whether philosophy is a science. In the first place, we would have to begin by considering the question: "what is science?" It is not necessarily confined to the incredibly specialized investigations that characterize modern scientific practice. And philosophy, for all its "scientific" inexactness, is (in its best sense) based just as surely upon observable phenomena as "science" is. The point being: the more "cut and dried" the analysis, the less objective the conclusion. -Alan
rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) (02/03/90)
In article <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex- >Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why >I abandoned it. Perhaps I might use the exercise of posting to that >forum to clarify my own views. Perhaps I might even shed some light on >the subject for others. In any case, I think it would be fun to talk it out. This is precisely the sort of thing that is entirely *in*appropriate for any Objectivism newsgroup. Sci.philosophy.objectivism is not being proposed because some people think it might be "fun" to talk about "what's wrong with Objectivism". It is being proposed to provide a place for serious discussion about technical aspects of the philosophy of Objectivism. Those who do not agree with Objectivism are welcome, but the purpose of the group demands that they only post if they are willing to be serious about the issues and consider what the Objectivists have to say. To repeat: *This is not being proposed as a dumping ground for anyone who wants to talk about what he doesn't like about Objectivism.* Mr. Jones is correct on one point. If the newsgroup is put in talk, this sort of thing is more likely to happen. That is one more reason, on top of all of the other reasons, to put the group in sci. The sci title indicates that the group is for serious and in-depth discussion, and people tend to think their postings out more thoroughly on such a group. Whereas the talk title all too often signals that people will feel free to post *whatever* happens to come to mind, whether it is intelligent and thoughtful or not. -- Robert Tracinski | "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is <rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu> | a contradiction in terms: before it could Student of Philosophy | identify itself as consciousness, it had to be University of Chicago | conscious of something."-Ayn Rand,_Atlas_Shrugged_
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (02/03/90)
In article <+RH1D5xds12@ficc.uu.net> karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >David Bombardier writes: >>I have already put into my global kill file a number of individuals whom I >>consider to be hostile to Objectivism, several of whom call themselves >>Objectivists. > > Embrace orthodoxy. > Defend dogma. > Close your mind. > > Objective, indeed. I hate to say it, but doesn't this orthodoxy remind you of mainline Marxism, circa 1930s Russia? Scientifically provable, objective, etc.??
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/03/90)
In article <3311@iitmax.IIT.EDU> demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes: |The talk proponets continue to hurl |invectives as their main method of argumentation, and scorn we sci proponents |for failing to fully prove our points, as if we had to footnote each |sentence with a philosophic treatise, a delimitation of context, and an |answer to any possible objections, while all they have to do is scream like |children that we have not done so. It is relevent to note, here, that you do seem to be using words in a way contrary to normal English usage... for example: by claiming to be basing your philosophy on reason then using such emotionally laden invectives as "evil" to describe your opponents and their arguments. Thus it seems not unreasonable to expect you to define your terms, or if you're not willing to do so at least to restrict yourself to using words in such a way that your arguments may be understood by those not thoroughly schooled in the particular language of your discipline. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) (02/03/90)
In article <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: >It is time to bring the discussion (if I may dignify it with that word) over >sci vs. talk for *.philosophy.objectivism to a close. Nice rhetorical device. >Those of us who have been arguing for sci.philosophy.objectivism have given a >lengthy, detailed and cogent defense of our position. We have demonstrated >that: > 1) Philosophy is a science. > 2) This accords with the intention and current usage of the sci.* > hierarchy. > 3) Thus, the newsgroup should be sci.philosophy.objectivism. Premise 1 is false. Philosophy is not a science. Philosophy is an art. Philosophy lacks some of the characteristics of the sciences. One of the most glaring is the inability to perform experiments of the same mode as in the sciences. In a scientific experiment, all but a small number, ideally one, of the variables involved with the experiment are controlled. After the experiment is performed, it can be repeated letting another variable "vary." These kinds of experiments are difficult, perhaps beyond human ability, in the realm of philosophy. How are all the variables to be isolated, or even known ahead of time? The number of possible variables is great, leaving the philosopher to navigate by dead reckoning and rules of thumb, just as his artist colleagues. Lacking the capability to perform experiments takes the scientific method out of philosophy, therefore philosophy is not science. Do not make the mistake of thinking that because something is not scientific, that it lacks critical thinking and discipline. Although, that the objectivists on the net wish to dress themselves as scientists does say something of the quality of their thinking. Another approach to this argument would be to state that philosophy is not a science; science is a philosophy. Taking that argument forward I'll leave as an exercise for the reader. -- Craig E. Ward <cew@venera.isi.edu> Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) (02/03/90)
In article <7434@tank.uchicago.edu>, rwt1@tank (Robert Tracinski) writes: >In article <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >>I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex- >>Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why >>I abandoned it. >This is precisely the sort of thing that is entirely *in*appropriate for any >Objectivism newsgroup.Sci.philosophy.objectivism is not being proposed because >some people think it might be "fun" to talk about "what's wrong with >Objectivism". It is being proposed to provide a place for serious discussion >about technical aspects of the philosophy of Objectivism. Maybe, then, we should have talk.philosophy.objectivism and talk.philosophy.objectivism.wizards, following previous example. It is accepted net.practice to have the general group created first, and only afterwards, when the general group has _demonstrably_ failed to contain flamage, is a 'wizards group created for technical discussion. >To repeat:*This is not being proposed as a dumping ground for anyone who wants >to talk about what he doesn't like about Objectivism.* Oh, it never is. But newsgroups are seldom created if they announce upfront that they will not tolerate polite dissenting opinion. >The sci title indicates that the >group is for serious and in-depth discussion, and people tend to think their >postings out more thoroughly on such a group. You keep saying this like it's obvious, when it's clear to most that you're confusing cause and effect. The postings in sci.math are serious and in-depth not because of the hierarchy, but because of the subject matter. If you don't believe me, try aliasing talk.abortion to sci.abortion, or soc.singles to sci.singles, and see if the discussion elevates. For people who believe in the power of reason and the scientific method, you sure don't know a lot about controlled experiments. >Whereas the talk title all too >often signals that people will feel free to post *whatever* happens to come to >mind, whether it is intelligent and thoughtful or not. Sorry. I hate to break it to you, but posting to a talk group doesn't make one less thoughtful, nor, sadly, does posting to a sci.group make one smarter. Caveat lexor. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "In addition I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts. Namely, the physical universe." --Ken Jenkins
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/03/90)
In article <7434@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: > To repeat: *This is not being proposed as a dumping ground for anyone who > wants to talk about what he doesn't like about Objectivism.* By this do you mean to say that you intend to stifle criticism? If that's the case you should either set up a mailing list (oh, you have two of those already) or create your own hierarchy (as the GNU folks have). All the sci title means is that a talk group will appear at sites that have chosen not to receive talk groups. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (02/03/90)
From article <7434@tank.uchicago.edu>, by rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski): > In article <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> I (djones@goofy) writes: >> >> ... I think it would be fun to talk it out. > > This is precisely the sort of thing that is entirely *in*appropriate for any > Objectivism newsgroup. Sci.philosophy.objectivism is not being proposed > because some people think it might be "fun" to talk about "what's wrong with > Objectivism". It is being proposed to provide a place for serious > discussion about technical aspects of the philosophy of Objectivism. Please accept heartfelt my apology. I promise not to have any fun talking about Objectivistism, which is a very serious branch of Science, with lots of technical aspects badly in need of serious discussion and a place to put it. I guess I've just been having too much fun lately. It has something to do with having moved to Northern California, I think. Back in Ohio, and before that in Texas, where you can't swing your arms without hitting an Objectivist, absolutely nobody had any fun. Here fun seems to be commonplace, almost respectable. Nor is it restricted to frivolous activities like surfing, music, sex and the like. They have fun discussing philosophy and the other branches of science. Even the serious ones! Some people even seem to enjoy having good natured fun poked at them occasionally. Yes, I know that sounds sick, almost non-objective, but believe me, I've seen it happen. To make amends, and to prove my sincerity, I hereby propose that the group be called sci.philosophy.objectivists-only.serious and that only Objectivists be allowed to vote for or against its creation. It should be moderated to exclude those who show any signs of mirth or joyfulness. (In this we can be guided by the sex scenes in Rand's books.) Furthermore, I wish to go on record now, and herewith post my vote _against_ rec.humor.objectivism. In retrospect, I think I may have fallen too much under the influence of the late Walt Kelly, a suspected non-objectivist sympathizer, who in the guise of a cartoon opossum named Pogo said, "Don't take life too serious. It ain't no ways permanent." About all that can be said in Kelly's defense is that he was at least consistent enough in his beliefs to prove his point by example.
rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) (02/03/90)
I would like to clarify my position on opposition to Objectivism on SPO. Reasonable opposition will be welcome on SPO, but one must remember that the newsgroup is not being created for the primary purpose of giving people a forum in which they state why they don't like Objectivism. Would you consider it appropriate for Luddites to post on a comp newsgroup? Or for someone to post on a newsgroup concerned with issues of interest to homo- sexuals (whatever such groups might be) merely to say "you're all a bunch of perverts and sick-o's"? Or for an atheist to antagonize everyone on a religion newgroup? This is why I think the charter ought to say that reasoned opposition is welcome, but that it should set a context which makes it clear that casual insults or opposition for its own sake are not welcome. I don't think that most of the readers of SPO will want to cut through all of the noise of such irrelevant postings. -- Robert Tracinski | "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is <rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu> | a contradiction in terms: before it could Student of Philosophy | identify itself as consciousness, it had to be University of Chicago | conscious of something."-Ayn Rand,_Atlas_Shrugged_
root@robecdc.UUCP (Super user) (02/03/90)
In article <3314@iitmax.IIT.EDU> demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes: > >Several individuals have argued for placing *.philosophy.objectivism in the >talk hierarchy on the basis that the newsgroup will consist of flame wars >between individuals with different interpretations of what Objectivism is. > >This will not be the case. This already is the case, thank you everyone involved (including me) >I am a strong advocate of _ignoring_ hostile (as opposed to reasoned) flames. >I have already put into my global kill file a number of individuals whom I >consider to be hostile to Objectivism, several of whom call themselves >Objectivists. I know that a number of others who intend to post on SPO have >done or intend to do the same thing. Bob Stubblefield, in his posting on a >proposed charter, advocated ignoring hostile flames. Interesting, I kill on SUBJECTS (ie u.usa.ut.1) I would be denying my own philosophy to simply treat another individual as though they do not exist. Any belief, philosophy, religion, science, which buries it head in the sand hoping it won't be seen (or maybe see?) is inherently defective. (I should predicate this on implementation by the individual) >If flaming occurs on SPO, it will come largely from anti-Objectivists and >pseudo-Objectivists. Since it will be ignored, these types will eventually go >away. You may deny my existence to your heart's content, this however does not in any shape manner or form lessen my own personel reality or existence. >I am a member of a large, private mailing list consisting of Objectivists who >consider the others on the list to have a good grasp of Objectivism. There >have been many ongoing discussions on serious issues. There has _never_ been >a single flame. AMAZING SIMPLY AMAZING. SSSSHHHHHHAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -William A. Sneed uucp: ...!pyrdc!robecdc!ghost -Robec Dist. voice: (703) 631-4800 -Manassas, Va fax: (703) 631-4806 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brain fried -- Core dumped ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The words you have just read are strictly my own and no one else's. They in no way should be construed as anything but my own personal opinion. Besides no one else would lay claim to them. :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) (02/04/90)
In article <3314@iitmax.IIT.EDU> demodsb@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes: > [...] >I am a strong advocate of _ignoring_ hostile (as opposed to reasoned) flames. "Reasoned flames" is an oxymoron. >And, if the anti-Objectivists and pseudo- >Objectivists continue to flame, they will serve to emphasize the differences >between themselves and authentic Objectivists. Read "...emphasize the differences between themselves and 'True Believers.'" It is becoming clear that this group should be called "talk.religion.objectivism." -- Craig E. Ward <cew@venera.isi.edu> Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
spok@gs6.sp.cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) (02/04/90)
In <7434@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: >In <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >>I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex- >>Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why >>I abandoned it. Perhaps I might use the exercise of posting to that >>forum to clarify my own views. Perhaps I might even shed some light on >>the subject for others. In any case, I think it would be fun to talk it out. > >This is precisely the sort of thing that is entirely *in*appropriate for any >Objectivism newsgroup. [...] Those who do not >agree with Objectivism are welcome, but the purpose of the group demands that >they only post if they are willing to be serious about the issues and >consider what the Objectivists have to say. This reply bothered me a lot. Mr. Jones above simply states that he would enjoy discussing some of the problems he sees with Objectivism; whereupon Mr. Tracinski replies that such posts would be inappropriate to the sci.philosophy.objectivism group, implying that Mr. Jones would not be "serious" about the issues or be willing to listen to Objectivists. Now, how did Mr. Tracinski jump to this conclusion, might I ask? Did Mr. Jones say that he would not seriously consider responses? Unless one thinks that "fun" == "not serious" and that "talking it out" really means "giving a monlogue", then I don't see how one can say that he won't. Mr. Tracinski has said that he doesn't mind seeing "reasonable opposition" on s.p.o, but the speed at which he seems to conclude that Mr. Jones' articles critical of Objectivism would be "unreasonable" gives me grave doubts about how "objective" the newsgroup he proposes will actually be, and how seriously he will listen to opposing viewpoints. John Ockerbloom -- ========================================================================== ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom ocker@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded) 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217
rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) (02/04/90)
In article <7821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> spok@gs6.sp.cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) writes: >In <7434@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: >>they [should] only post if they are willing to be serious about the issues and >>consider what the Objectivists have to say. >This reply bothered me a lot. Mr. Jones above simply states that he would >enjoy discussing some of the problems he sees with Objectivism; whereupon >Mr. Tracinski replies that such posts would be inappropriate to the >sci.philosophy.objectivism group, implying that Mr. Jones would not be >"serious" about the issues or be willing to listen to Objectivists. > >Now, how did Mr. Tracinski jump to this conclusion, might I ask? By the general phrasing of the message, which indicated that Mr. Jones was only interested in posting on SPO in order to attack Objectivism rather than out of any serious desire to understand Objectivist arguments. That is, his purpose seemed to be merely negative--to attack Objectivism--not positive--to gain a further understanding of Objectivism. This is not to say that SPO is only for those who agree with Objectivism, but that its purpose is of a positive nature. It's purpose is to study and discuss the philosophy of Objectivism, not to post junk about how "I was an Objectivist once and boy was I screwed up". But this was precisely the attitude that I saw in Mr. Jones' original posting, and his subsequent postings (which, by the way, are entirely irrelevant to the news.groups discussion) have vindicated my judgment. I don't go to Democratic Socialists' meetings to heckle them. I don't ask hostile questions at lectures by Kantian professors. I don't write articles about "how neurotic I was when I was a Platonist" (actually, I was never either). Such behavior would be rude and obnoxious. I don't see why the readers of SPO should be expected to like being subjected to the same kind of behavior from anti-Objectivists. That's one reason I support placement in the sci hierarchy--it would enable us to point to the charter, as well as to the general nature of the sci groups in order to establish that such postings are inappropriate. (To head off one possible objection, I will point out that I have vigorously opposed moderation for the group from the beginning and continue to do so. Every reader is capable of judging for himself what are and are not appropriate postings.) >John Ockerbloom -Robert Tracinski -- Robert Tracinski | "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is <rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu> | a contradiction in terms: before it could Student of Philosophy | identify itself as consciousness, it had to be University of Chicago | conscious of something."-Ayn Rand,_Atlas_Shrugged_
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (02/04/90)
Peter da Silva, John Ockerbloom and some other readers have expressed their opposition to Robert Tracinski's reply to Dave Jones and think that his comments implied no criticism of Objectivism would be welcom in SPO. Robert has explained himself well but I would like to add some of my own observations. Please note that the so called "sci diehards" (of whom I happen to be one) have vigorously opposed *any* moderation. If our purpose was not to welcome any dissent or criticism, we would have actively supported moderation. We *do* welcome criticism of Objectivism and inquiries about validity of its ideas. What we do not think is appropriate to the newsgroup are baseless diatribes against it. For example, an argument of the sort "Objectivism claims to establish a rational ethics based on objective facts. I don't accept their argument because it has this particular flaw <insert your favorite argument>. Therefore, I disagree with it. If Objectivists can defend their argument, I would like to see how they prove their case" would be welcome. Also inquiries like "how does Objectivism explain how concepts such as love are formed" is welcome. Whereas an argument of the sort "you're just a bunch of fools who are just a fan club of Ayn Rand" is NOT welcome. Such an "argument" serves no purpose. It does not offer any arguments for its criticism of Objectivism or Objectivists but is intended just to provoke flames. I think this would be true of any newsgroup, not only SPO. The posting should pertain to the subject matter of the newsgroup. It should not be a senseless flame. That's why a discussion of a charter which establishes guidelines for what the purpose of a newsgroup is, would go a long way towards establishing a quality newsgroup. -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "For I lean on no dead kin, my name in mine for fame or scorn And the world began when I was born and the world is mine to win" --Badger Clark--
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (02/04/90)
In article <7450@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes:
# That's one reason I support placement in the
#sci hierarchy--it would enable us to point to the charter, as well as to the
#general nature of the sci groups in order to establish that such postings are
#inappropriate.
The same thing was said and tried with sci.skeptic. It was a dismal
failure in the attempt to stop inappropiate (according to the charter)
postings. Why would SPO be different? If the reason for being in sci
is to stop inappropiate postings, then we need a new reason.
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wdjones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (02/04/90)
From article <7450@tank.uchicago.edu>, by rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski): >> >>Now, how did Mr. Tracinski jump to this conclusion, might I ask? > > By the general phrasing of the message, which indicated that Mr. Jones was > only interested in posting on SPO in order to attack Objectivism rather than > out of any serious desire to understand Objectivist arguments. That is, his > purpose seemed to be merely negative--to attack Objectivism--not positive-- > to gain a further understanding of Objectivism. This is not to say that > SPO is only for those who agree with Objectivism, but that its purpose is > of a positive nature. What 'general phrasing' do you refer to? Here's what I said, exactly as you quoted it: > I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex- > Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why > I abandoned it. Perhaps I might use the exercise of posting to that > forum to clarify my own views. Perhaps I might even shed some light on > the subject for others. In any case, I think it would be fun to talk it > out. There's not an emotional word in the lot. Perhaps the word 'fun' bothers you? Don't worry. I don't equate fun and malicious mischief. But look at the 'general phrasing' you use: 'attack', '[no] serious desire', 'merely negative'. It's not quoted here, but I seem to remember an allusion to a 'dumping ground'. You read quite a bit more into this posting than I wrote. I'm not an Objectivist. I was once. I think it would be enjoyable to talk about it. It is not obvious to me that difference of opinion is 'merely negative' or that it constitutes an 'attack'. I have a friend of twenty-two years who still considers himself an Objectivist, but who nevertheless enjoys discussing the topic with me on the phone and on the rare occasions when one of us can make the 1200 mile visit. Yes, it is true that if I post to an Objectivist group I'll most likely say something that is not right down the party line. That's not exactly like taking out a club and bopping you one is it? You say I don't have a serious desire -- there's that 'S'-word again -- to understand Objectivism. But in fact, I studied it for years. I am more receptive to other's ideas than you may imagine, and quite eager to listen to reason. Few things please me more. I think it was largely the promise of reason that drew me to Objectivism. The ironic bit of business I posted in response to your first reply was a bit caustic, I confess. Sorry about that. You know how a reformed smoker gets livid if somebody lights up -- how recovering alcoholics preach at the tippler? Well, I once took myself very seriously. My 'self-esteem' was so high, it was right off the scale. Now days, when my pomposity-sensor starts beeping, I sometimes let the sarcasm get out of hand. Perhaps it was unwarranted. Maybe the sensor needs adjustment. If you misread the tone of my message, maybe I misread the tone of yours.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/04/90)
In article <7450@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: > That's one reason I support placement in the > sci hierarchy--it would enable us to point to the charter, as well as to the > general nature of the sci groups in order to establish that such postings are > inappropriate. Putting a group in SCI doesn't do anything to raise the quality of postings in the group. If you want to raise the quality of postings, then moderate the group. And put it in SOC or MISC. > (To head off one possible objection, I will point out that I > have vigorously opposed moderation for the group from the beginning and > continue to do so. Why? It works quite well. Oh, by the way. Playing silly games with followups isn't an advisable move if you are interested in convincing folks of anything. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/06/90)
rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: >This is why I think the charter ought to say that reasoned opposition is >welcome, but that it should set a context which makes it clear that casual >insults or opposition for its own sake are not welcome. I don't think that >most of the readers of SPO will want to cut through all of the noise of such >irrelevant postings. I don't disagree with your ideal at all, but I'd like to inject a little practicality here. My limited experience on the net has shown me that you can write whatever you want in a charter, and some people will ignore it. But, generally a newsgroup will develop its own tone, which will endure. An example is news.newusers.questions. It's a relatively young group. When it was first created, all kinds of merry pranksters showed up to make trouble; but some were ignored, and some were told, "this is n.n.q., you don't get to flame here because any question asked about news, its software or email are legitimate." And the troublemakers got bored and went away. I expect that you will see some of that with your group--lots of troublemakers at first. But, you may not have the good fortune to have detractors go away, as in the example above. The topics in n.n.q. are generally noncontroversial. With any topic that's controversial, such as Objectivism, there will be "lively discussion" and flames, unless you police the group through moderation. Wherever the proposed group falls in the hierarchy, it may not turn out to be the newsgroup you envisioned. Karen Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "The best way out is always through." Robert Frost
gcf@panix.UUCP (J. S. B'ach) (02/06/90)
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: )>I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex- )>Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why )>I abandoned it. ... rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: )This is precisely the sort of thing that is entirely *in*appropriate for any )Objectivism newsgroup. Sci.philosophy.objectivism is not being proposed because )some people think it might be "fun" to talk about "what's wrong with )Objectivism". It is being proposed to provide a place for serious discussion )about technical aspects of the philosophy of Objectivism. Those who do not )agree with Objectivism are welcome, but the purpose of the group demands that )they only post if they are willing to be serious about the issues and )consider what the Objectivists have to say. ... sci ... indicates that the )group is for serious and in-depth discussion, and people tend to think their )postings out more thoroughly on such a group. Whereas the talk title all too )often signals that people will feel free to post *whatever* happens to come to )mind, whether it is intelligent and thoughtful or not. In other words, a vote for sci, as opposed to talk, etc., is a vote on the validity of Objectivism; if you vote yes, it means you think that Objectivism might be scientifically valid and is a worthy subject of serious discussion. In that case those of us who find Objectivism invalid, or silly, will have to vote no. While I find the religious worship of the sci prefix pretty silly in itself, if we're called to pass judgment on a particular philosophy as a community, I guess we have to do it. I would think Objectivists would rather have a newsgroup than a referendum, but suit yourselves.
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/06/90)
In article <7394@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: >In article <1660@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >>In article <26240@cup.portal.com> ROSS_DAVID_HARTSHORN@cup.portal.com writes: >>> David Kelley (a former official Objectivist, author of Evidence of the >>>Senses, written shortly before he was purged from the ranks by Peikoff): >>How does Peikoff get to do this? > In response, Peikoff wrote an article ("Fact and Value") which argued >that Kelley's views were not consistent with Objectivism but opposed >to it, and said that he no longer considers Kelley to be an Objectivist. It still seems strange to me that a philosophical, much less a scientific, disagreement would be conducted in those terms. It sounds more like a religious disagreement to me. >>I'm not sure I still want to consider Objectivism a philosophy. > ^^^^^^^ >I don't see why the actions of people associated with Objectivism would have >any power to alter the fact that Objectivism is a philosophy. The sad fact is that this discussion has become political. Some have argued more or less that it would be an insult to use the talk hierarchy. I was willing to say: well, there should be a group -- do I really care where it goes? So when I said "want to" I meant I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) (02/06/90)
In article <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: >It is time to bring the discussion (if I may dignify it with that word) over >sci vs. talk for *.philosophy.objectivism to a close. That's one of the very few statements in this article I completely agree to. > >Those of us who have been arguing for sci.philosophy.objectivism have given a >lengthy, detailed and cogent defense of our position. We have demonstrated >that: > 1) Philosophy is a science. > 2) This accords with the intention and current usage of the sci.* > hierarchy. > 3) Thus, the newsgroup should be sci.philosophy.objectivism. > That's your and your followers' opinion. Nobody has denied your right to argue that way. A lot of people posted different points. I don't want to force you to be convinced by them, but very few defenders of objectivism or sci placement (Mehul Dave was an appreciating exception) ever tried to even recognize their arguments. >The response has been almost exclusively from those who get a power trip out of >flaming people, or who derive some juvenile pleasure from using dirty words in >public, or who apparently have nothing better to do than spend all day making >snide comments. I will not dignify these people with a public response because >they have contributed no actual content to the discussion. (There have been a >few rare exceptions, but their arguments have not been very extensive, e.g. >Gene Spafford.) > IMHO, very few objectivism bashing has taken place in this discussion. Most people agreed about creation of an xxx.objectivism group. The main argument about not sci was preserving the clarity of the sci hierarchy. I didn't recognize any dirty word from the opposers of spo . I am tired wasting bandwidth to make my own point clear again and again. Only one thing: Following your proposal, we are creating a sci.philoso- phy.$PHILOS_SCHOOL group, where PHILOS_SCHOOL=objectivism in this case. Would you as well defend a group sci.philosophy.marxism? Marxism is a philosophical school as well, it claims to be "scientific socialism", in short, philosophy as a science. I asked myself for that, to make the problem clearer. Either you say yes, (in case enough interest would exist). This would be at least a tolerant and democratic point, with the risk to overload the sci hierarchy. Or you say no, because objectivism is good, reasonable etc, whereas marxism is bad, irrational etc. This would be a merely religious point, clearly discriminating the proposed group from the sci hierarchy. From an outside view (non-objectivist) objectivism is not a bit better (or worse) than any philosophic school, as marxism, existencialism, structuralism, positivism, eastern philosophies (which are expressively non-scientific, as stated before by a poster - forgot who). >The discussion is so intellectually one-sided that it is completely un- >productive. We have made convincing arguments and have received no substantive >intellectual opposition. It is time to close this case and move on the next >issue, namely the SPO charter. > >The most fruitful area of discussion to start on is the issue of how to >maintain the quality of discussion on the newsgroup without a moderator. Bob >Stubblefield has made some very good comments on this subject, and I will >continue on this subject in future messages. > Note that this group is not yet spo. I regarded Bill Wells' poll a good idea. I voted NO for spo, but yes for talk only if no better solution can be found. In the current hierarchy, I would favour soc (where soc.history is being established, for example), granting the respect of seriousness of the topic. I don't think that the recent mass invasion of news.groups by objectivists stating "we made the convincing arguments, all others are stupid or evil" doesn't help to make your issue convincing. Nobody of the objectivists dismantled the real background - that sci is the widest distributed group, whereas talk and soc are often absent especially on company sites. Though I can understand that motivation, I guess everybody knows that it is no valid argument for placement of spo, but I feel it shining through a pretty big part of this discussion (maybe I'm wrong here). > >Robert Tracinski regards, es
bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) (02/08/90)
In general, I think that somebody who is an 'X' has something to learn from somebody who is an ex-'X' -- the thing to be learned may be quite different from what the ex-'X' believes it is though. Therefore I'd welcome critical or negative postings and posters to the newsgroup; I find an equivocation of these with irrational and hostile flamers and noise-makers dismaying. The latter may be dealt with according to the suggestions made (basically, ignore them). ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------------------------
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/08/90)
In article <1682@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
: >>> David Kelley (a former official Objectivist, author of Evidence of the
: >>>Senses, written shortly before he was purged from the ranks by Peikoff):
:
: >>How does Peikoff get to do this?
:
: > In response, Peikoff wrote an article ("Fact and Value") which argued
: >that Kelley's views were not consistent with Objectivism but opposed
: >to it, and said that he no longer considers Kelley to be an Objectivist.
:
: It still seems strange to me that a philosophical, much less a
: scientific, disagreement would be conducted in those terms. It
: sounds more like a religious disagreement to me.
It sounds like a religious disagreement to any rational person.
Peikoff and company want to enforce an Objectivist dogma and do
not permit any significant disagreement.
To put it bluntly: they want to dictate what Objectivism is, and,
by logical extension, what is to be considered true by
Objectivists.
If that doesn't sound like a cult leader, I'm unable to find a
better description. Peikoff is chief of the Randroid cult. And he
and his cult members demonstrate the lack of independence that is
characteristic of all cultists. As an Objectivist, I'm revolted
by such tribalism and reject it utterly.
Every movement has its lunatics, its virulent fanatics, its
mindless adherents. They just have to be put up with and, when
necessary, sat upon. It is unfortunate for Objectivism that the
person who *should* stand for reason and independence instead
stands for dogma and dependence.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_flink@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul V Torek) (02/09/90)
Although Jeff Small may be right that philosophy is a science, that fact alone is a woefully inadequate argument for classifying an objectivism newsgroup under "sci". Such a group would be dominated by "extensive discussions" as Gene Spafford points out; thus it clearly qualifies for classification under "talk" -- there is no reason to suppose that qualification for "talk" and for "sci" need be mutually exclusive. The question is which classification would be MORE appropriate. And the answer is that pragmatic reasons clearly favor "talk". Since others have eloquently stated those reasons, I won't bother to repeat them. -- Wait! ... There's no oat bran in FROOT LOOPS! Paul Torek flink@mimsy.umd.edu
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/09/90)
In article <906@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes:
: I don't think that the recent mass invasion of news.groups by objectivists
: stating "we made the convincing arguments, all others are stupid or evil"
: doesn't help to make your issue convincing. Nobody of the objectivists
: dismantled the real background - that sci is the widest distributed group,
: whereas talk and soc are often absent especially on company sites.
: Though I can understand that motivation, I guess everybody knows that it
: is no valid argument for placement of spo, but I feel it shining through
: a pretty big part of this discussion (maybe I'm wrong here).
I believe that you are wrong here. Knowing the psychology of
Randroidism, I can tell you that the mere idea of Objectivism
being called a science is sufficient. Other sci proponents may,
of course, have different motivations.
Most of the sci proponents are so ignorant of the net that they
probably don't even *know* that talk is less well distributed than
sci.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (02/09/90)
In article <5056@convex.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: >used in the very loosest sense. Science is empirical; to be scientific, a >question must--at least in theory--be capable of resolution by experiment. >Modern philosophy deals with precisely those questions that cannot--*even >in theory*--ever be resolved through experiment. If one can devise an >experiment that would solve a question, then that question is not a >philosophical one. Philosophy is therefore not "scientific". What you doubtless MEAN to say is that 1) many people mean an empirically based system of inquiry when they say "science" and 2) that is what the sci newsgroups are all about -- THOSE sciences. However, I can't agree that science IS empirical. Remember when Bacon first talked about an empirical science? That's a new idea (relatively speaking). And I don't think its quite correct to say philosphical things are immune to empirical query -- modern philosophy is just concerned with some things which are quite abstract and which require a good bit more theory to figure them out. After all, the use of the senses is very empirical, and all data must come from them (i.e. there is also room for empirical input to philosophy -- if you prefer to say that scintists provide all of this to philosophers, then so be it -- the dividing line is quite thin -- what is the difference between an applied epistemologist and a person in AI?) Ron
lambert@piring.cwi.nl (Lambert Meertens) (02/09/90)
From article <9002062327.AA11371@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>: ) She also noted a difference in choice of topics: Mac students write ) about fast food, dating, the idiot box etc., PC students write about capital ) punishment, teenage pregnancy, nuclear war. In article <7434@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes: ) Sci.philosophy.objectivism is not being proposed because ) some people think it might be "fun" to talk about "what's wrong with ) Objectivism". It is being proposed to provide a place for serious discussion ) about technical aspects of the philosophy of Objectivism. Can't we make it mandatory that contributions to SPO are posted from a PC? -- --Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lambert@cwi.nl
francis@mirror.UUCP (Joe Francis) (02/10/90)
In article <0ZltB5y00Xc1MZPXZ9@andrew.cmu.edu> cr10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christopher John Rapier) writes: >About the Skepticism vs Realism debate I mentioned earlier I suggest >read Rene Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy". Great work >that attempts to provide a base for reality without presuposing the >existance of reality. Excellent philosophizing. Hmmm. I found "Meditations on the First Philosophy" to be a mixed bag. I can appreciate the "carefully reasoned" approach (which is not to say that a book must be written this way to be worthwhile), but I was dissapointed by how easily fallacies could be unearthed in his text. Reminded me of Alvin Plantinga, who is noteable for using very formal logic constructs (for a philosophical work - don't be offended mathematicians) to couch his arguments in, which makes it all the easier for the critic to find the hole.
mls@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (mike.siemon) (02/11/90)
In article <8783@boring.cwi.nl>, lambert@piring.cwi.nl (Lambert Meertens) writes: > Can't we make it mandatory that contributions to SPO are posted from a PC? This *must* at least be added to the charter. I can think of no better way to guarantee the quality of the group (Tom said, macishly.) -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must ...!cucard!dasys1!mls love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!sfbat!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul) (02/13/90)
From article <9002062327.AA11371@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>: > She also noted a difference in choice of topics: Mac students write > about fast food, dating, the idiot box etc., PC students write about capital > punishment, teenage pregnancy, nuclear war. Odd ... might lead to the assumption that ((Mac Student) == (McStudent)). Eh? Paul J. Mech oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU!deadpup!paul uiucuxc!oucs!oucsace!deadpup!paul