djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (02/02/90)
From article <CMM.0.88.633891635.bfu@skakke.uio.no>, by bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad): > I'd like to point out that a simultaneous voting on sci.p.o. and > talk.p.o. would be an instance of "the prisoners' dilemma", as > described in e g Robert Axelrod's _The Evolution of Cooperation_. > > In other words, if the people who wants t.p.o. vote no to s.p.o. > and the people who wants t.p.o. vote no to s.p.o., then they may > cancel each other out, and then we'll have no Objectivism newsgroup. > I therefore urge those who want one of the alternatives not to vote > no to the other alternative. > I intend to vote _yes_ to talk.philosophy.objectivism and _no_ to sci.philosophy.objectivism for the simple and obvious reasons that I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism but I would not like to have sci.talk.objectivism. 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. I would not like to have sci.philosophy.objectivism because Objectivism is not science or anything like it. Placing it in the sci directory is a dodge to avoid the stigma and limited distribution of the talk- hierarchy. I think it odd that there is a sci.philosophy at all. Philosophy and science, once synonymous, parted ways long ago, with the advent of the scientific method. How does one conduct a repeatable philosophy experiment? How do you make a falsifiable philosophical prediction? Sci.philosophy is as obvious a dodge as sci.aquaria and comp.women. More so. At least no one can reasonably argue that they don't believe in a particular kind of aquarium or that women don't use computers
bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) (02/06/90)
>From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) >Date: 2 Feb 90 04:19:19 GMT >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. I would be very interested to learn your views and experiences, and discuss them; comparing this with those of my own would either provide me with an example of things I already know -- or clarify issues which I may be somewhat unfamilar with -- or even learn me something entirely new e g if I hold a wrong view on some issue. If you will permit me to say so, no flame intended, I have the impression from your later message in this thread that you may blaim Objectivism for issues which would rather seem to be related to previous idiosyncracies of yourself. >I would not like to have sci.philosophy.objectivism because Objectivism >is not science or anything like it. ... >Philosophy and science, once synonymous, parted ways long ago, with the >advent of the scientific method. How does one conduct a repeatable philosophy >experiment? How do you make a falsifiable philosophical prediction? I disagree with this; see my previous message (subj: reorganization) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------------------------