jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/18/90)
After reading the discussions of what is and is not appropriate
for sci, I have to concur that talk.philosophy.objectivism or
talk.objectivism would be more appropriate.
I still think it should be unmoderated, but, if it is to be
moderated, Bill Wells strikes me as being a good choice. Co-
moderation would also be acceptable.
Jeff Daiell
Aside to Tricky Dicky: regarding your response to my crack about
your mental state ... nice try, but it didn't work.
--
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 Paarlbergdavidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (01/20/90)
If all the yelling/screaming/flaming about what objectivism is hasn't
convinced you that it should be a talk group, think about sci.politics.
It'd be much the same.
And why not sci.philosophy.rand, for the discussion of Ayn Rand's
philosophical beliefs. That seems to be all you're arguing about anyway,
and while objectivism may or may not be a valid philosophical system
(I'd never heard of it, so I hold no opinions), the fact that it was Rand's
is valid.
being objective about
objectivism.
(Look ma! A discussion about s/t.philo.obj that doesn't flame anyone!)
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
my toes know the ramble, and i can dance my dance - chaoskarl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (01/24/90)
In article <D751=X6xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >After reading the discussions of what is and is not appropriate >for sci, I have to concur that talk.philosophy.objectivism or >talk.objectivism would be more appropriate. I agree with Jeff. I am not surprised to see people still pushing for the inappropriate sci category, this being usenet after all. Nonetheless I had hoped that xanthian@saturn.ads.com's comments would have ended those attempts, to wit: >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. ... The posters will be intractable. Arguments will last forever. Consensus will never be reached. These are characteristics of talk groups. If Objectivism is to get a group, it should be a talk group (unmoderated as well, in my opinion). -- -- 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
gcf@panix.UUCP (J. S. B'ach) (02/03/90)
In article <7J91MN8xds12@ficc.uu.net> karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
)>After reading the discussions of what is and is not appropriate
)>for sci, I have to concur that talk.philosophy.objectivism or
)>talk.objectivism would be more appropriate.
)
)I agree with Jeff. I am not surprised to see people still pushing for the
)inappropriate sci category, this being usenet after all. Nonetheless
)I had hoped that xanthian@saturn.ads.com's comments would have ended
)those attempts, to wit:
)
)>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. ...
Actually, there are fairly unresolvable controversies in most
sciences, especially those where theories can't be subjected to
highly controlled experimentation, for example psychology and
sociology. I think the dispute over whether or not Objectivism
fits into the sci.* hierarchy simply shows the vanity of the
hierarchical system. Similar arguments could be made for other
bodies of knowledge: sci.scientology, sci.literary-criticism,
sci.theology.Roman-Catholic. The argument becomes one about the
validity of Objectivism, which is beside the point; what should
matter is whether a lot of people want to read about it or not,
not whether we collectively think it's valid or verifiable.