CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
T. William Wells
talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for
discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
related topics. It would be moderated by me.
My purpose as moderator would be to filter out flames and
postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism.
I will issue a call for votes on January 27, provided the flames
have died down by then.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bi...@twwells.com
Mehul Dave
bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes
>This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup:
>talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for
>discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
>related topics. It would be moderated by me.
>
>My purpose as moderator would be to filter out flames and
>postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism.
I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator. An
unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's
judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism
and what is not.
--
--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
"To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
Dinah B. Schein
>In article <1990Jan13.1...@twwells.com>
>bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes
>
>>talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for
>>discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
>>related topics. It would be moderated by me.
>>
>>My purpose as moderator would be to filter out flames and
>>postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism.
>
>unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's
>judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism
>and what is not.
>--
>--Mehul Dave--
I have been a reader of sci.philosophy.tech for some time now, but
have never posted. The recent proposal to create a moderated newsgroup for
Objectivism made me decide to post. I will most emphatically vote against
the _moderated_ newsgroup for the same reasons as Mehul Dave. An unmoderated
newsgroup is what is needed.
Dinah Schein
dsc...@neon.stanford.edu
Tim Maroney
Create a mailing list, and if it turns out to have wide appeal and a
diversity of perspectives, then consider moving it into the group
hierarchy at an appropriate place. Perhaps talk.religion.objectivism.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Every year, thousands of new Randoids join the ranks. Most tend to be either
too-rich self-made tycoons or picked-on computer nerds (the romantic, heroic
individualism of Rand's novels flatters the former and fuels the latter's
revenge fantasies)." -- Bob Mack, SPY, July 1989
T. William Wells
: I have been a reader of sci.philosophy.tech for some time now, but
: have never posted. The recent proposal to create a moderated newsgroup for
: Objectivism made me decide to post. I will most emphatically vote against
: the _moderated_ newsgroup for the same reasons as Mehul Dave. An unmoderated
: newsgroup is what is needed.
Followups to my original message were directed to news.groups,
since that is where these kinds of discussions are supposed to be
held. So have followups to this one.
I'll answer objections there, not here.
T. William Wells
: In article <1990Jan13.1...@twwells.com>
: >postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism.
:
: I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator. An
: unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's
: judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism
: and what is not.
As expected, the "other" Objectivists have decided to campaign
against me as a moderator. There is a reason for this which I'll
touch on in a moment. However, I'd like to point out one
immediate absurdity in Mehul Dave's posting.
He asserts that he "doesn't trust [my] judgement on what
constitutes flames". This would be amusing were it not merely
stupid. Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well
practiced at generating, and detecting, both. :-)
I moderate comp.archives. I also moderate an Objectivism mailing
list. I defy you to find a flame on either. (Yes, there was a
flame or two in the mailing list; that was before I moderated it
and, in fact, is the reason I chose to moderate it.)
Now, as for the "what is related to objectivism and what is not",
here is where we get into the meat of the matter. I'd like to
bring to your attention the following, from a posting by one of
Mehul Dave's cohorts in philosophy:
In message <73...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> r...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (r.w.stubblefield) writes:
: Objectivism is a proper name; it is a particular philosophy--the
: one formulated by Ayn Rand. I would not want SPO moderated by
: someone who does not grasp Objectivism's fundamentals. Clearly, I
: think I do; but I cannot take the time to be a moderator and I
: don't think I should expect others to take my word that I
: understand it well enough to have that role. I personally would
: only contribute to a moderated Objectivism group if the moderator
: were sanctioned as such by Leonard Peikoff--and that's not likely
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: to happen.
Why did I underscore that? This has to do with a difference of
opinion among Objectivists. Since I'm not in a flaming mood right
now, I won't detail the differences; suffice it to say that Mr.
Stubblefield wants a moderator who will enforce the "orthodox"
Objectivist viewpoint and who will engage in the moralizing that
substitutes for reason that is all too common among certain kinds
of Objectivists.
You read that correctly. Yes, what they want is philosophical
purity within the newsgroup and a platform from which to preach
their version of Objectivism. Views like mine would almost
certainly be edited out. Or, would be met with ridicule rather
than reason.
This, BTW, is not theoretical. I've seen this precise thing
happen in other forums. Repeatedly. For example, I got to be
revolted hearing Ayn Rand read (in a Q&A period for one of
Peikoff's lectures) a question and respond with essentially "that
is an evil question".
Now, I want to make this clear: I vehemently disagree with these
people. I think they are, at best, deluded; at worst, evil. On the
other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for
Objectivism would necessarily include their words.
Steve Cumming
>This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup:
>talk.philosophy.objectivism.
>
I'll vote yes, as long as it's called talk.religion.objectivism.
--
stevec@theory.[toronto.edu|utoronto.ca] Death is inevitable -
Steve Cumming, a.k.a. live accordingly.
T. William Wells
: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy.
Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that
moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On
all counts.
: Create a mailing list,
There are already *two* mailing lists, a fact you could have
discovered for yourself, had you bothered to look.
Edward Vielmetti
I moderate comp.archives. I also moderate an Objectivism mailing
list. I defy you to find a flame on either.
or much of anything on comp.archives in its original few months of
operation, for what that's worth.
I find objectivists objectionable, but so far they haven't intruded on
my space. The question is, whether they would be more objectionable
quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections.
--Ed
T. William Wells
: In article <1990Jan14.1...@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
: I moderate comp.archives. I also moderate an Objectivism mailing
: list. I defy you to find a flame on either.
:
: or much of anything on comp.archives in its original few months of
: operation, for what that's worth.
That's true, but a little misleading. For whatever reason, people
do not post that much on comp.archives. (Yes, I have to take part
of the blame: I really should have promoted comp.archives better.
But that is water under the bridge.) Now, Ed is scarfing up
appropriate postings from other groups and reposting them on
comp.archives; I wish I had the time to do things like that, but
I'm always very busy.
: The question is, whether they would be more objectionable
: quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections.
They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of
their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to
not having to put up with them.
Mehul Dave
[ A lot of stuff about me which should not be discussed in this
newsgroup because it is not relevant here]
>Why did I underscore that? This has to do with a difference of
>opinion among Objectivists. Since I'm not in a flaming mood right
>now, I won't detail the differences; suffice it to say that Mr.
>Stubblefield wants a moderator who will enforce the "orthodox"
>Objectivist viewpoint and who will engage in the moralizing that
>substitutes for reason that is all too common among certain kinds
>of Objectivists.
>You read that correctly. Yes, what they want is philosophical
>purity within the newsgroup and a platform from which to preach
>their version of Objectivism. Views like mine would almost
>certainly be edited out. Or, would be met with ridicule rather
>than reason.
Part of all this is correct. Certainly you and I differ over what is
objectivism. Which is precisely why the newsgroup should be
unmoderated. Please note that it is not me, but Mr. Wells who is
asking for moderation. I could say, like Mr. Wells does, that if
he was the moderator, my views won't be heard because he would regard
them as "inconsistent with objectivism". So, the only fair way out
is to have the newsgroup unmoderated.
What I think of objectivism or what Mr. Wells thinks is not the point.
We'll let each reader decide who understand objectivism and who doesn't.
Which is precisely why I am asking for an unmoderated newsgroup.
Mr. Wells also has a legitimate point in noting that there would be
flames on an unmoderated newsgroup. They have already started right
now with suggestions of objectivism being a religion. But then there
are always kill files whose value cannot be overemphasised. It is
better to take the flames and have kill files rather than Mr. Wells
(whom I do not consider an objectivist) deciding what is proper for
the group and what is not.
>Now, I want to make this clear: I vehemently disagree with these
>people. I think they are, at best, deluded; at worst, evil. On the
>other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for
>Objectivism would necessarily include their words.
Well, in the same breath, you say we are "evil" or "randroids" or
whatever and then you say you regard us to be objectivists. And yet
to expect us to believe that you will not edit off our views? That's
why I said I don't trust your judgement on what is objectivism
(and don't ask you to trust my judgement either). You have already
started attacking me even before the newsgroup is created and then
you want me to believe that you will not moderate out my postings
despite your hatred of me?
Jeff Daiell (if you're reading this), this is why I am asking for an
unmoderated newsgroup. I (and several others) have a problem with
Mr. Wells as a moderator because as I said, I don't trust his
judgement. Similarly Mr. Wells (and several others) have a problem
with one of us being a moderator. So, I am asking for an unmoderated
newsgroup.
Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed
newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all
of objectivism or only parts of it?
Edward Vielmetti
me : The question is, whether they would be more objectionable
: quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections.
They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of
their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to
not having to put up with them.
so I am to be encouraged to give them a base from which to launch
their nefarious, interminable, mind-poisoningly objectionable
campaigns? Hardly.
I think that *.objectivism should be unmoderated, to make it more
easy to cross-post to talk.bizarre.
--Ed
Miron Cuperman
a better moderation scheme. Let there be more than one moderator.
If somebody gets turned down for a posting by one, he may appeal
to another. If any of the moderators decides the article is OK
it will be posted.
Another scheme is to have alt.objectivism. Anyone denied a post
to the moderated group may post to the unmoderated one. If people
see that good articles get posted to the alt group and denied to
the sci group, the moderator may be replaced (by vote).
Miron Cuperman <mi...@cs.sfu.ca>
Peter da Silva
There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the
orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be
sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
Dwight Joe
| I have been a reader of sci.philosophy.tech for some time now, but
| have never posted. The recent proposal to create a moderated newsgroup for
| Objectivism made me decide to post. I will most emphatically vote against
| the _moderated_ newsgroup for the same reasons as Mehul Dave. An unmoderated
| newsgroup is what is needed.
I presume that Ayn Rand is your lighthouse of wisdom. 8^)
Gene W. Smith
>There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the
>orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be
>sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses.
So far the only person who seems to clearly want a moderated
group is Bill Wells. I would say he is outvoted, and a call for
votes on *any* moderated objectivism group would be
inappropriate. What is needed is an unmoderated objectivism
group, where Stubblefield can post whatever drivel he likes.
Moderating a talk.philosophy.objectivism group is almost like
moderating talk.origins, with a Creation Scientist as the
moderator.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
Blair P. Houghton
>bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes
>
>>This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup:
>>talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for
>>discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
>>related topics. It would be moderated by me.
>>
>>My purpose as moderator would be to filter out flames and
>>postings that are completely unrelated to Objectivism.
>
>I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator. An
>unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's
>judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism
>and what is not.
Concur.
--Blair
"That's a preemptive no-vote, T-bill."
Tim Maroney
>: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy.
>
(T. William Wells) writes:
>Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that
>moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On
>all counts.
Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that
leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that
it's basically a Rand fan club.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
FROM THE FOOL FILE:
"Yet another piece of evidence that it's a Communist society which is being
presented as good, but which we probably would not want to live in."
-- Ken Arromdee on rec.arts.startrek, on the Federation's Red Menace
T. William Wells
: I have a suggestion.
:
: There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the
: orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be
: sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses.
Fine by me.
Joe Harris
Reply-To: har...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris)
Followup-To:
Distribution: news.groups
Organization: Stanford University
Keywords:
I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci
hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Under no circumstances would I vote for, or post to, an Objectivism
newsgroup which is moderated by someone who is not a recognized authority
on Objectivism. Since no such recognized authorities are available, an
unmoderated newsgroup is the only alternative.
In my judgement, there is no real reason to have a moderator; anyone
who behaves irrationally can simply be ignored--and each individual can be
his own judge as to what constitutes irrationality.
I do not need anyone to tell me what does or does not belong in
an Objectivist newsgroup--that is a decision that I can make for myself.
Joe Harris
har...@portia.stanford.edu
Gene W. Smith
>I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci
>hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g.
>sci.philosophy.objectivism.
I was hoping this idea would die quietly over on
sci.philosophy.tech. As it is, I will just say that if you want
to post Objectivist philosophy to sci.aquaria, you have my
blessings. If you don't know why I suggested this, you also don't
know why your idea should never have been proposed. Forget it.
Thou knowest not what thou dost.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720
"There are no differences but differences of degree
between degrees of difference and no difference"
Dan Veditz
If you want a moderated group create a soc.philosophy.whatever or use
soc.{ religion | politics }.whatever
Let 'talk' remain a bastion of unfettered speech.
-Dan
uunet!ashtate!dveditz
Blair P. Houghton
Oh, is _that_ the reason?
Well, then, save us the newgroup and just instruct Objectivists
to post to alt.flame, instead, to be with the rest of the postings
that nobody really wants to see.
--Blair
"We'll know what to do
with them..."
Blair P. Houghton
>
>There appear to be two camps here. Why don't each of the two camps, the
>orthodox and the reformist, appoint a moderator? Each posting could be
>sent to whichever moderator the poster chooses.
What then do we do with the fundamentalist, charismatic, and crypto-
communistic Objectivist camps, then, eh? Maybe there should be
five moderators. Or should we add one more for agnostic Objectivists
(I'd like to believe there's Ayn Rand, but...) and another for those
who don't fit any of the above groups...
In fact, why don't we just appoint all the people who've
posted articles to any group that have not yet been expired
at ficc.uu.net to be the moderator, and give each one a
group to moderate according to their sect?
--Blair
"...comp.objectivism.bondage, to be
moderated by Anon...@n7kbt.WA.COM"
Gregory Nowak
}me : The question is, whether they would be more objectionable
} : quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections.
}bi...@twwells.com
} They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of
} their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to
} not having to put up with them.
}so I am to be encouraged to give them a base from which to launch
}their nefarious, interminable, mind-poisoningly objectionable
}campaigns? Hardly.
Pay attention. They have already invaded other newsgroups. Whether a
special newsgroup would serve as a "base" is hard to determine; what
is a fact is that unwelcome objectivist rants have already been posted
to sci.philosophy.tech.
}I think that *.objectivism should be unmoderated, to make it more
}easy to cross-post to talk.bizarre.
Where they would be completely unwelcome. For all of you news.groups
weenies, this is where the crossposting comes from -- non-readers of
talk.bizarre who figure that the name of the newsgroup excuses them
from crossposting to it, then are surprised when they are told that
their crossposts are inappropriate to talk bizarre. If you think
somebody is an idiot, then FLAME THEM, and if you like your own
writing so much, crosspost to alt.flame so others can enjoy it. But
crossposting your flame to talk.bizarre merely because you find the
opinions you're flaming "bizarre" is a tired, tired, immature little
joke, disrespectful of another newsgroup. As a general rule of thumb,
if you don't read a group, don't crosspost to it. Talk.bizarre has
developed its own standards about what constitutes an acceptable
posting, and they deserve as much respect as those of soc.singles or
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.
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
Corey Lofdahl
>>unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's
>>judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism
>>and what is not.
>>--Mehul Dave--
> [I agree] Dinah Schein
I'm behind you Mr Wells. I think the newsgroup should be moderated.
Really, here's a guy that's going out of his way to provide a forum
and these two people "don't trust him". I really hate to see this.
If Mr. Dave and Ms. Schein don't like the moderation method, there
are plenty of unmoderated newsgroups they can slog through. Just don't
turn into a little Caesar Mr. Wells and make me regret my support.
----------------------------------------------corey------------------------
lof...@ide.com
Michael Ellis
>>This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup:
>I'll vote yes, as long as it's called talk.religion.objectivism.
Whether we like it or not, Ayn Rand's nonfictional work is
actually placed in the philosophy section of libraries and
bookstores. She may be treated as a pariah by academic
philosophers, but she wrote philosophy all the same.
In my experience, there have always been many Objectivist
USENET contributors and there always will be. With a separate
newsgroup of their own, I think there would be a lot less friction in
groups like sci.philosophy.tech.
I support talk.philosophy.objectivism, and if it is moderated I
should hope that both Bill Wells and a representative of the Peikoff
orthodoxy would have a hand in its administration.
-michael
David Shepherd
>In article <1990Jan14.2...@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>>In article <EMV.90Ja...@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> e...@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>>: The question is, whether they would be more objectionable
>>: quibbling over their own usenet turf, or invading other sections.
>>They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of
>>their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to
>>not having to put up with them.
>to post to alt.flame, instead, to be with the rest of the postings
>that nobody really wants to see.
we had a mega flame war on eunet (well it was mega by eunet standards
but nothing like the current high standards of news.groups flamings)
over objectivism. basically there was one objectivist who seemed to
spend most of his time sending often abusive follow ups to
eunet.general. After about 2 months it all died down when he left to do
his 2 years Swedish national service.
His main line of attack was to claim that any assertion that could not
be "proved" labelled you as a moral bankrupt - however he never seemed
to prove anything and incessantly quote Ayn Rand and made proto-facist
rantings.
Giving them their own group may help to isolate them from the rest of
netland but I expect they would say that saying they should be posting
to talk.philosphy.objectivism is an assertion and not a fact and thus
can be ignored.
david shepherd
INMOS ltd
Tim Maroney
Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in
nature.
In any case, why doesn't someone create alt.objectivism, and if that
takes off, we can discuss moving it into the main hierarchy.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Starting in a hollowed log of wood -- some thousand miles up a river, with an
infinitesimal prospect of returning! I ask myself 'Why?' and the only echo
is 'damned fool! ... the Devil drives!"
-- Sir Richard Francis Burton in correspondence to Monckton Miles, 1863
Raymie Stata
1. What is the charter?
Some people would like to see the newsgroup in "sci." hierarchy. But
the charter of the newsgroup is what should determine where it is put.
If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues
in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy. But I
would like to see the charter include discussions of current events,
summaries of Objectivism events as they happen around the country, news
from campus and other clubs. A group with this kind of newsgroup belongs
in the "talk." hierarchy.
As far as technical discussions of philosophic issues are concerned,
what is needed is sci.philosophy, not sci.philosophy.objectivism.
2. I am opposed to a moderated newsgroup.
In the case of Objectivism a call for a moderated newsgroup will lead to
endless flaming over who will moderate it. More generally, I think that
moderated newsgroups should be very rare---moderators have too much power
and the potential for abuse is great. Also, moderators add uneeded delay.
Bill Wells feels that a moderator will be necessary because an Objectivism
newsgroup would generate an unusuall amount of flaming. I don't think
that's the case. Most of the flaming that Objectivism arouses comes from
non-Objectivists on newsgroups whose subject matter is not Objectivism. Most
of these people will not read or post to a talk.philosophy.objectivism. As
to ``flaming'' that arises among people who all claim to be Objectivists, I
wouldn't want anybody---no matter who ``sanctioned'' them---to decide what
was flaming and was an honest attempt at argumentation. This is a judgement
each man should make for himself (I am reminded of ``Who is the Final
Authority in Ethics?'').
Raymie Stata
ray...@athena.mit.edu
jeff daiell
>there was one objectivist who ...
> he never seemed
> to prove anything and incessantly quote Ayn Rand and made proto-facist
> rantings.
Please define "proto-fascist" in this context. Objectivism places a high value
on strict respect for Human Rights, so if you mean proto-fascist literally
(as opposed to 'anyone who disagrees with David Shepherd'), the man was
obviously not an Objectivist.
Pro Libertas,
Jeff
--
A Fusser named McGee; a most amusing sight!
He fusses every day, then fusses every night. TUNE:
What can he mean, this Fusser named McGee, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF
Who fusses first at you, then fusses next at me?
jeff daiell
> If anything, this should be soc.politics.objectivism.
>
> Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
> people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in
> nature.
Tim,
I hate to sound harsh, but this is 100% wrong. It's like saying
that baseball has no physical component because, as Yogi B. put
it, "90% of baseball is half mental".
Yes, Objectivism has a political component ... but it has much,
much, more. And even the political component it has would not
have to be as prominent as it is were the world not so horrifically
overgoverned.
I would ask that you read some of Rand's non-political works and
then rethink your assessment.
Jeff Daiell
Jeff Cook
>>>I will vote against this newsgroup with the proposed moderator. An
>>>unmoderated newsgroup is acceptable. I do not trust Mr. Wells's
>>>judgement on what constitutes flames and what is related to objectivism
>>>and what is not.
>
>>>--Mehul Dave--
>
>> [I agree] Dinah Schein
I would vote in favor of an Objectivist newsgroup only if it was
unmoderated. I would vote against it otherwise. Trust has nothing
to do with it--I don't know Mr. Wells, so I am entirely unable to
evaluate his "trustworthiness", one way or the other.
However, I think that each person has to judge for themselves the
value of the articles posted. Each person's arguments must stand on
their own merits, and their value must be determined individually by
the people reading them.
I would not want to read articles through a filter provided by Mr.
Wells. He would be free to give his opinions as to the value of the
articles or their relevance to Objectivism, and I would be very much
interested in his comments. But I don't want him standing between me
and the opinions expressed by others.
Mr. Lofdahl wrote:
>I'm behind you Mr Wells. I think the newsgroup should be moderated.
>Really, here's a guy that's going out of his way to provide a forum
>and these two people "don't trust him". I really hate to see this.
I would hope that Mr. Wells' efforts to create an Objectivist
newsgroup are a result of the potential benefit to his own self-
interest that he sees in the outcome. I don't think he would demand
moderator status as "payment" for those efforts--he will benefit by
creating the newsgroup regardless of his own status within that
group.
I doubt that he is only willing to create the group if he is the
moderator. In the unlikely event that this is his prerequisite for
creating the newsgroup, then should the vote for a moderated group
fail, I would be willing to push for an unmoderated one. This is
not my intention--I would prefer to give my support and "yes" vote
to the efforts already being made by Mr. Wells.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey L. Cook jeffc%ncr...@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.com
NCR Microelectronics uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!ncr-fc!jeffc
2001 Danfield Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525 These views are entirely mine, etc...
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Lehenbauer
Talk groups exist, in practice, so committed people of opposing viewpoints can
endlessly flame the living sh!t out of each other. (cf. talk.politics.*,
talk.religion.*, talk.origins, &c &c)
A group for Objectivism should be a crucible for a hearty bonfire indeed.
A moderated group assures no flame will be suppressed.
So let's get the group created and let the flames pour forth.
That's what the net is for, right?
--
-- 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
T. William Wells
: In article <twwells.1990Jan14.142457.19621>
: bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes
:
: [ A lot of stuff about me which should not be discussed in this
: newsgroup because it is not relevant here]
Try again. The stuff you deleted was my saying that your assertion
that I can't be trusted to recognize a flame is absurd. Since the
reason I proposed the group as moderated is to keep out flames,
discussion on that point is quite relevant.
: >Now, I want to make this clear: I vehemently disagree with these
: >people. I think they are, at best, deluded; at worst, evil. On the
: >other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for
: >Objectivism would necessarily include their words.
:
: Well, in the same breath, you say we are "evil" or "randroids" or
: whatever and then you say you regard us to be objectivists.
That is correct. An Objectivist is one that has a philosophy that
agrees with Rand's on the essential points. Randroids, though
violating the philosophy by taking Objectivism on faith,
nonetheless agree with those points. Thus, from my point of view,
Randroids are Objectivists, though bad ones.
: And yet
: to expect us to believe that you will not edit off our views?
Yes, I expect you to believe that. Why? If for no other reason
that, were I to reject them or edit them, you could post on other
newsgroups complaining about this, thus discrediting me as
moderator.
At least two people have suggested co-moderation, which is to say,
two people, presumably myself and someone acceptable to you, as
moderators. I'd accept that.
Do you need more proof?
: Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed
: newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all
: of objectivism or only parts of it?
From the original posting:
: This newsgroup would exist for
: discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
: related topics.
Looks like a charter to me. And, to answer your question: all of
it.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bi...@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_
T. William Wells
: >: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy.
: >
: In article <1990Jan14.1...@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com
: (T. William Wells) writes:
: >Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that
: >moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On
: >all counts.
:
: Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that
: leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that
: it's basically a Rand fan club.
One of my points of contention with my fellow Objectivists is
that I advocate trying to understanding other's points of view.
I've added to my understanding that you refer to calling a
bullshitter a bullshitter as "quasi-religious didacticism".
Oh, BTW, you really should go look up "didactic". A counter-flame
hardly counts as didactic.
T. William Wells
: 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.
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.
But that is not what the proposed newsgroup is for.
"talk" Groups largely debate-oriented and tending to feature long
discussions without resolution and without appreciable amounts
of generally useful information.
Whether we like it or not, an Objectivism group will be "largely
debate-oriented" and "feature long discussions without
resolution". Whether it would generate "appreciable amounts of
generally useful information" is something that Objectivists and
non-Objectivists are likely to disagree about.
: In my judgement, there is no real reason to have a moderator; anyone
: who behaves irrationally can simply be ignored--and each individual can be
: his own judge as to what constitutes irrationality.
That's true if the the group is mostly rational discussion. My
fear is that an unmoderated group would be almost entirely
composed of flames and various irrationalities. At that point,
kill files don't work and the only cure is to leave the group.
Which would mean leaving the group to the irrationalists.
David Shepherd
>Please define "proto-fascist" in this context.
ok, an example was along the lines of a claim that Black African
economies were failing because their governments weer wasting their
time trying to teach savages (sic) to read.
david shepherd
INMOS ltd
Thomas Gramstad
>Date: 16 Jan 90 15:28:55 GMT
>Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
>people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in
>nature.
The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers
who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association.
I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently
have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a
philosophy.
On second thought, maybe not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gramstad b...@ifi.uio.no
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Maroney
>> Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
>> people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in
>> nature.
In article <LY31G...@ficc.uu.net> je...@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
>I hate to sound harsh, but this is 100% wrong. It's like saying
>that baseball has no physical component because, as Yogi B. put
>it, "90% of baseball is half mental".
No, it's more like saying that baseball is not a branch of physics.
The fact that balls follow ballistic trajectories doesn't make it
physics.
>I would ask that you read some of Rand's non-political works and
>then rethink your assessment.
I have -- or rather, I've tried. "Crackpot" springs to mind. Rand's
"philosophy" is nothing of the kind; even less is it psychology. It
aspires to be both, but merely erects a nonsensical terminology utterly
devoid of empirical basis and calls that "wisdom". I suggest that
*you* read some philosophy before you try to gain admission to its
ranks.
Flame away; anything you say will likely have expired before I get back
from an unfortunate sojourn to the opposite coast.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"I've been called an evil genius by cities of assholes... but I know who
these people are! And they're on my list!" -- Robert Crumb
Raymie Stata
1. What is the charter?
Some people would like to see the newsgroup in "sci." hierarchy. But
the charter of the newsgroup is what should determine where it is put.
If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues
in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy. But I
would like to see the charter include discussions of current events,
summaries of Objectivism events as they happen around the country, news
from campus and other clubs. A group with this kind of charter belongs
in the "talk." hierarchy.
As far as technical discussions of philosophic issues are concerned,
what is needed is sci.philosophy, not sci.philosophy.objectivism.
2. I am opposed to a moderated newsgroup.
Moderated newsgroups should be very rare---moderators have too much power
and the potential for abuse is great. Also, moderators add uneeded delay.
Bill Wells feels that a moderator will be necessary because an Objectivism
newsgroup would generate an unusuall amount of flaming. I don't think
that's the case. Most of the flaming that Objectivism arouses comes from
non-Objectivists on newsgroups whose subject matter is not Objectivism. Most
of these people will not read nor post to a talk.philosophy.objectivism. As
Thomas Maddox
In the spirit of goodwill that has pervaded news.groups
lately, a proposal intended to solve several conflicts:
Objectivism *obviously* belongs in the sci hierarchy, and
equally obviously deserves special treatment:
sci.gibbering.Objectivism.wells
sci.gibbering.Objectivism.peoplewhohatewells.
andthinkheknowsdickaboutObjectivism
and in a special move designed to take into account the exceptionally
profound and interesting nature of Objectivism:
sci.gibbering.Objectivism.[insert name of any other loony who needs
his or her own Objectivist newsgroup for reasons of doctrinal purity or sheer
megalomania or just because]
Then, regarding the rec.arts.cinema controversy, I suggest the
creation of an entire new branch on the Usenet tree: arts.
Then we could have arts.cinema.moderated (for those who remain
afraid that the unwashed will do it in the streets and frighten the
horses) and arts.cinema.anythinggoes for those misguided souls who
insist upon allowing the plebes to express themselves without the
decent intervention of an Initiate.
Finally, let us have alt.cisco, a simple enough solution, but
*only* if we also have alt.pancho.
Yours sincerely,
Tom "the Talleyrand of news.groups" Maddox.
Gene W. Smith
>If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues
>in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy.
Why? Talk.philosophy.misc is often technical, and is certainly
more technical than "sci".objectivism would likely be. Yet it's
in the "talk" hierarchy.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
Peter da Silva
> crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
> do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_
If this be objectivism, I must say that the majority of folks pushing for
the group are pretty poor objectivists. All they seem to come up with are
assertions.
Perhaps it would find a better home in "soc"?
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
Peter da Silva
How about alt.cyberpunk.objectivism?
T. William Wells
: >there was one objectivist who ...
: > he never seemed
: > to prove anything and incessantly quote Ayn Rand and made proto-facist
: > rantings.
:
: Please define "proto-fascist" in this context. Objectivism places a high value
: on strict respect for Human Rights, so if you mean proto-fascist literally
: (as opposed to 'anyone who disagrees with David Shepherd'), the man was
: obviously not an Objectivist.
Hey Jeff, Mr. Shepherd has a valid complaint. I agree with him
about the person he is referring to, except that I'd use much
stronger language.
Remember the guy I mentioned who is a racist and who justified it
by means of pseudo-Objectivism? He's the same person. If you want,
I'll send you the information I have that confirms this.
Dan Veditz
>against me as a moderator.
One thing no one is answered is why a talk group should be moderated.
The ongoing discussion points out some of the advantages of having a
moderator, but why then a 'talk' group? The 'talk' hierarchy exists
for unfettered discussion about controversial subjects (this one seems
to qualify). If you want it moderated, put it somewhere else.
Just put the habitual flamers in your KILL file and don't worry about
it. If you really want free discussion about the subject, let it be
free discussion.
>On the other hand, they *are* Objectivists; a legitimate forum for
>Objectivism would necessarily include their words.
>
Are you proposing a group for people who *are* objectivists to talk, or
a group for people to talk *about* objectivism?
I would expect a Usenet newsgroup to allow (non-flame) dissenting opinions
about the topic at hand, otherwise it's just not worth it to foot the
bill to carry your traffic; use a mailing list. I'm not sure the proposal
was clear on this, or perhaps I've been confused by M. Dave's postings.
>Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well
>practiced at generating, and detecting, both. :-)
>
Agreed :-)
-Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz
Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dve...@ashtate.A-T.com
Mehul Dave
>: 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 :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
"To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
Metafont Consultant Account
>>From: t...@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
>>Date: 16 Jan 90 15:28:55 GMT
>
>>Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
>>people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in
>>nature.
>
>The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers
>who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association.
>
>I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently
>have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a
>philosophy.
>
>On second thought, maybe not.
This has no bearing on the question of whether Objectivism is a
"legitimate" (whatever that might mean) philosophy.
To make a telling analogy, chiropracters are now admitted to the
American Medical Association. This doesn't make them any more
doctors, nor any less dangerous quacks. It is merely a comment on the
hunger of a spineless professional organization for additional dues
and the political power associated with greater membership.
Admitting Randites to the APA doesn't elevate the Randites, it just
degrades the APA.
--
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.
xant...@well.sf.ca.us xant...@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 <-
Norm Gall
| >From: t...@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
| >Date: 16 Jan 90 15:28:55 GMT
| >Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
| >people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in
| >nature.
| The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers
| who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association.
| I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently
| have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a
| philosophy.
Mr. Maroney's statement is still borne out given that the Ayn Rand
Society is a _political_ philosophical society, by and large,--and
most members of the Society are not 'professional philosophers', as
you intimate, but political theorists.
The term philosopher is bantered about quite loosely, but
'professional philosopher' should not.
nrg
--
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
Robert Garmong
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
Mehul Dave
bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes
>: And yet
>: to expect us to believe that you will not edit off our views?
>Yes, I expect you to believe that. Why? If for no other reason
>that, were I to reject them or edit them, you could post on other
>newsgroups complaining about this, thus discrediting me as
>moderator.
I have no intention of going through all that trouble. It has been
observed by other posters that moderators on USENET have very wide
powers and it is not easy to get a moderator off the newsgroup. Besides,
I would not want to cross post my articles to other newsgroups when
there is already a newsgroup for Objectivism.
>At least two people have suggested co-moderation, which is to say,
>two people, presumably myself and someone acceptable to you, as
>moderators. I'd accept that.
I would not. Let me repeat my opposition. I am opposed primarily to
the idea of *anyone* moderating the proposed objectivism newsgroup. I
am also opposed to you in particular as a moderator. The reason I am
opposed to any moderation has been reiterated by many posters. It is
best to let each individual decide what is consistent with Objectivism
and what is not. It appears as though you don't seem to think that
the readers of USENET are capable of doing this.
>: Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed
>: newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all
>: of objectivism or only parts of it?
>From the original posting:
>: This newsgroup would exist for
>: discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
>: related topics.
>Looks like a charter to me. And, to answer your question: all of
>it.
Is this your idea of a charter? I would have at least expected a
summary of the key principles of Objectivism which would set the frame
work for any new participant in the newsgroup. I would further expect
that some qualifications be made such as whether the newsgroup is for
studying Objectivism in detail from the view of a formal study or a
free-wheeling discussion. I think it should be for the former i.e.
discussion of technical aspects of Objectivism and which is why the
newsgroup should be called sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Metafont Consultant Account
[...]
>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.
David Shepherd
>> "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_
>
>If this be objectivism, I must say that the majority of folks pushing for
>the group are pretty poor objectivists. All they seem to come up with are
>assertions.
that appeared to be the general concensus on eunet 6 months ago
(-: the proof of the above is left as an exercise for the reader :-)
Jeff Dalton
>They're already invading other sections. With a newsgroup of
>their own, those that dislike Objectivists can look forward to
>not having to put up with them.
Only if the newsgroup is not moderated. Otherwise, whole categories
of objectivists will not use it.
-- Jeff
Jeff Dalton
>>I'll vote yes, as long as it's called talk.religion.objectivism.
>
> Whether we like it or not, Ayn Rand's nonfictional work is
> actually placed in the philosophy section of libraries and
> bookstores. She may be treated as a pariah by academic
> philosophers, but she wrote philosophy all the same.
Haven't you noticed that the phil sections of bookstores often have
all sorts of pseudo-philosophical religious junk in them or are
actually a combined "Religion and Philosophy" section? I'm not
inclined to let *bookstores* decide this for me. Nor libraries.
They don't seem to mind scattering philosophy into all kinds of
separate sections, often on different floors.
Jeff Dalton
>> If anything, this should be soc.politics.objectivism.
>> Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
>> people who don't read philosophy. It has always been political in
>> nature.
>Yes, Objectivism has a political component ... but it has much,
>much, more.
New! Improved! Whiter whites! More colorful colors!
>I would ask that you read some of Rand's non-political works and
>then rethink your assessment.
I've read some, and I'm inclined to agree with Tim. Perhaps it's
just that Tim just has a broader notion of "political" than you do.
Eric J Peterson
|
| Objectivism *obviously* belongs in the sci hierarchy, and
| equally obviously deserves special treatment:
|
| sci.gibbering.Objectivism.wells
|
| sci.gibbering.Objectivism.peoplewhohatewells.
| andthinkheknowsdickaboutObjectivism
|
| and in a special move designed to take into account the exceptionally
| profound and interesting nature of Objectivism:
|
| sci.gibbering.Objectivism.[insert name of any other loony who needs
| his or her own Objectivist newsgroup for reasons of doctrinal purity or sheer
| megalomania or just because]
Instead of sci.gibbering.objectivism, how about alt.flame.objectivism?
From the postings to this newsgroup, it seems like the Objectivists are
better at disagreeing with each other about just what Objectivism is.
Anyone care for misc.test.objectivism?
| Finally, let us have alt.cisco, a simple enough solution, but
| *only* if we also have alt.pancho.
I was waiting for someone to notice that!
| Tom "the Talleyrand of news.groups" Maddox.
Eric
--
Eric Peterson <> pete...@nu.cs.fsu.edu <> uunet!nu.cs.fsu.edu!peterson
Florida State Univ CS Dept Technician, Room 011 Love Bldg, Phone 904/644-2296
echo "This is not a pipe." | lpr -P laserjet2
greg Nowak
>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
Metafont Consultant Account
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!
the saint
>b...@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) writes:
>| The Ayn Rand Society, an organization for professional philosophers
>| who are objectivists, is member of the American Philosophical Association.
>
>| I am sure that APA would be interested in the information you apparently
>| have, which they seem to have missed, as to why objectivism is not a
>| philosophy.
>
>Mr. Maroney's statement is still borne out given that the Ayn Rand
>Society is a _political_ philosophical society, by and large,--and
>most members of the Society are not 'professional philosophers', as
>you intimate, but political theorists.
The first paper presented at the ARS was on the nature of sense-perception.
The second was on the nature of goal-directed action. You are no doubt aware
that these topics are not simply political theory. Also, both papers were
presented by professional philosophers whose main field is not politics.
There are a number of people who are going to have to get used to the fact that
Objectivism is a serious philosophy that is here to stay, whether they like it
or not.
-Robert Tracinski
-rw...@tank.uchicago.edu
T. William Wells
: > crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
: > do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_
:
: If this be objectivism,
It is a quote from a book by Ayn Rand. Akston is one of her heroes.
: I must say that the majority of folks pushing for
: the group are pretty poor objectivists. All they seem to come up with are
: assertions.
As it happens, I first started using this signature when I got
totally disguested with certain Objectivists who simply assert
their ideas rather than demonstrate them and who continue to
assert them in the face of evidence that they are full of shit.
Nowadays, while I still occasionally use it as a slap in the face,
I generally intend it merely as a reminder.
Bruce Thompson
Having just recently read some of Ayn Rand's work for the first time, I would
certainly be interested in seeing a newsgroup on objectivism. Without getting
into problems with particular people, I have to ask why is it desirable for
the group to be moderated?
BTW, the comment that Objectivism is not a philosophy leads to the interesting
question of what then IS a philosophy? By any definition I have heard, it
certainly qualifies.
Cheers,
Bruce Thompson
==============================================================================
Bruce Thompson | "I've got this terrible pain in all the
NovAtel Communications Ltd. | diodes down my left side" - Marvin the
| Paranoid Android
The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of
NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.
T. William Wells
: Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few
: people who don't read philosophy.
Rand's work has almost always been philosophy, despite the claims
of a few people who don't read philosophy. Apparently, like
yourself. Continually asserting a falsehood as fact merely makes
you look stupid.
: It has always been political in
: nature.
This is only half true. Which is to say: Rand's work is roughly
half political, either philosophy or political commentary. The
remainder deals with a large number of subjects which have nothing
directly to do with politics. Later Objectivists have dealt far
less with politics than other areas.
You know, you'd make a better case if you didn't make stupid
statements that anyone with half a brain could verify as being
false. Anyone who cares can go look up Rand in a library and
discover that she had lots to say about many other subjects than
politics. And that her works, whatever the flaws, are philosophy.
Your saying otherwise does not change the facts.
At this point, I've concluded that you are either essentially
ignorant of Objectivism or you are a liar and a stupid one at
that.
In any case, you clearly have nothing worthwhile to say on the
subject.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bi...@twwells.com
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
Torkel Franzen
>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.
ROSS_DAVID...@cup.portal.com
In regards to whether a proposed discussion group on Objectivism should
be moderated or not:
I pick almost any forum I choose to discuss Objectivism, and get all the
flame I want, albeit in non-electronic form. Church, work, wherever. I've
been in a group of Objectivists (oops, make that "students of Objectivism",
the proper term according to Leonard Peikoff and company) which was presided
over by someone who tried to prevent anyone from disagreeing with him. My
solution to the problem was simple: walk out. What I don't want is to spend
time defending the basics of Objectivism to people who are irrationally and
emotionally opposed to it already. I'd rather have a chance to discuss some
aspects of it with people who already know what I'm talking about and who
agree with the basics. Then we can discuss (even argue about) the
applications, and I'd have a chance of learning something I didn't already
know, or having someone point out to me something implied by Objectivist
philosophy which I hadn't realized before. (and do my best to do the same
for others in the group as well, of course) I would rather see someone
act as moderator for the group, if he lets in all opinions that are relevant
and not overtly irrational (even criticisms of Rand's basic ideas, if it's
done intelligently).
Peter da Silva
> 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'.
Allen Gwinn
>A moderated group assures no flame will be suppressed.
^^^^^^^^^
Didn't you mean "unmoderated" here?
--
Allen Gwinn sulaco!allen DISCLAIMER: So SUE me... see if I care.
"Of *course* I can tell a flame from a non-flame. I'm well practiced at
generating, and detecting, both." - T. Willy Wells (bi...@twwells.com)
Tim Maroney
>: >: No. First, it's a fan club. Second, Objectivism is not philosophy.
>: In article <1990Jan14.1...@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com
>: (T. William Wells) writes:
>: >Your posting is just the kind of BS that leads me to believe that
>: >moderation is necessary. As it happens, you are simply wrong. On
>: >all counts.
>In article <96...@hoptoad.uucp> t...@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>: Funny, this is just the kind of quasi-religious didacticism that
>: leads me to believe that objectivism is not philosophy and that
>: it's basically a Rand fan club.
In article <1990Jan17....@twwells.com> bi...@twwells.com
(T. William Wells) writes:
>One of my points of contention with my fellow Objectivists is
>that I advocate trying to understanding other's points of view.
It's certainly not in evidence in this posting, or in the one quoted
above.
>I've added to my understanding that you refer to calling a
>bullshitter a bullshitter as "quasi-religious didacticism".
Such unbounded magnificence of perception and judgment can only
draw our awed appreciation, nay, envy.
>Oh, BTW, you really should go look up "didactic". A counter-flame
>hardly counts as didactic.
Read the message you flamed; it quoted nearly in full above. It was
not in any sense a flame, unless expressing any viewpoint that
conflicts with yours is a flame. There is neither personal attack nor
inflammatory language in it. A counter-flame only follows another
flame; therefore, yours was not a counter-flame.
And as for didacticism, I am curious what dictionary has a definition
that excludes statements such as "you are simply wrong. On all
counts." The OED's embraces such statements fully, as they "have the
character or manner of a teacher or instructor". The very essence of
the pejorative use of "diacticism" is that the didactician is assuming
a superior stance and the ability to pronounce judgment without
providing any supporting statements to establish the truth of their
judgments. What did *you* think it meant?
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!"
- The Censored Hacker
Jay you ignorant splut! Maynard
>Just put the habitual flamers in your KILL file and don't worry about
>it. If you really want free discussion about the subject, let it be
>free discussion.
This is the third or fourth message from Dan touting KILL files as the
solution to all net.problems. There's only one problem with that;
rn is not universally used on the net. Neither is any other reader with
kill file capability.
Until every site running news - on any OS, not just Unix - has kill
files, we should not make net policy based on their existence.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton
T. William Wells
: [reasons for moderation of the proposed group.]
Very few people want moderation. I believe that this is a
mistake, but I'll go with it.
BTW, discussion of this should be in news.groups, to which I've
directed followups.
Tim Atkins
Some of the postings on the creation of this group have tried to claim
Objectivism is not a philosophy. Pray tell on what grounds do you make
this claim? I have seen few generally agreed philosophies with the depth
and breadth of Objectivism.
- Tim
Tim Atkins
.
.Is this your idea of a charter? I would have at least expected a
.summary of the key principles of Objectivism which would set the frame
.work for any new participant in the newsgroup. I would further expect
.that some qualifications be made such as whether the newsgroup is for
.studying Objectivism in detail from the view of a formal study or a
.free-wheeling discussion. I think it should be for the former i.e.
.discussion of technical aspects of Objectivism and which is why the
.newsgroup should be called sci.philosophy.objectivism.
.
.--
.--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
.
."To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
I disagree with limiting the newsgroup to the technical aspects of Objectivism.
I think the cross-fertilization between theory and practice is invaluable. Also
Objectivists have often been guilty IMHO of not paying enough attention to
real world events and trends or at least of not stating their position on those
events when they and their readers would have benefitted greatly from a
rational approach to same. Application to the real world is a great aid in
clarifying what the theory is leading to and how it may be applied. If we
are to be whole Objectivists discussions of application are an absolute
necessity.
- Tim Atkins
Wayne Mesard
>In article <3...@dbase.A-T.COM> dve...@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes:
>>Just put the habitual flamers in your KILL file and don't worry about
>>it. If you really want free discussion about the subject, let it be
>>free discussion.
>
>files, we should not make net policy based on their existence.
Of course we should. Kill files are as near to universal as any
newsreader feature worth naming.
Are we to base all policy decisions on pandering to the least common
denominator, thereby removing the incentive to modernize?
Backwards compatibility is one thing, but holding back the rest of the
net for the mere convenience of those running obsolete software, is
quite another.
Wayne();
Dr. Sanio
>sci.psychology, sci.lang, sci.econ. Can you tell me what have these
>distribution says "established sciences". All major universities
>have departments of philosophies. Can you explain why philosophy is
>tower intellectuals is recent and it is sad that that has become the
>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.
>
>go under sci distribution. If you can show otherwise, I would be
>interested in hearing what you have to say.
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 :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
>
regards, es (sa...@netmbx.uucp e...@athen.uucp)
Peter da Silva
> Of course we should. Kill files are as near to universal as any
> newsreader feature worth naming.
Well, since neither B or C news is distributed with a newsreader that
supports KILL files, perhaps you might want to rethink this position.
Dr. Sanio
>In article <900118230...@apee.ogi.edu> meh...@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
>[...]
>>I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should
>
>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.
>
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'.
regards, es e...@athen.uucp sa...@netmbx.uucp (Erhard Sanio)
Lynne Ragazzini
> I would prefer that the group be unmoderated, but, if it is to be
> moderated, Bill Wells is a good choice. What's your problem
> (with Bill, that is), Mehul?
>
Since I'm new to News, I'm not familiar with Bill Wells or anyone else
but it's clear that if this were to be an unmoderated news group, the
anti-Objectivists would take over. I really don't even understand why
they want to waste so much energy trying to disqualify the premises of
Rand's philosophy. Why don't they start their own anti-Objectivist
newsgroup instead. I would like the Objectivist newsgroup to be a
positive discussion of Rand's ideas and not a bunch of people trying
to tell me that they're wrong, stupid, etc.
The opponents of Objectivism _as a whole_ can have their own discussions. I want to
deal with the Galts, Reardens, Wyatts, Hugh Axtons and Dagny Taggarts
of the net, not the Mouches, Boyles and Jim Taggarts.
Yes to a moderated group.
Mehul Dave
>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 (sa...@netmbx.uucp e...@athen.uucp)
--
--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
"To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
Gene W. Smith
>In article <8...@athen.sinix.UUCP> e...@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.
>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.
"Sci" was supposed to be for recognized sciences, not physical
sciences per se. But the structure could be revised in various
ways. One kluge which would not be too difficult to implement
would be a new top-level domain "hum" for humanities. Thus,
hum.history, hum.philosophy.misc, hum.arts.literature, etc.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward
Metafont Consultant Account
news.groups is that it still, marginally, pertains to the question of
whether *philosopy.objectivism should have "*" replaced by "sci".]
In article <9...@athen.sinix.UUCP> e...@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes:
=In article <10...@saturn.ADS.COM> xant...@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes:
=>In article <900118230...@apee.ogi.edu> meh...@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
=>
=>xant...@well.sf.ca.us xant...@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan)
=
=regards, es e...@athen.uucp sa...@netmbx.uucp (Erhard Sanio)
--
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.
xant...@well.sf.ca.us xant...@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan)
Metafont Consultant Account
> "Sci" was supposed to be for recognized sciences, not physical
>sciences per se. But the structure could be revised in various
>ways. One kluge which would not be too difficult to implement
>would be a new top-level domain "hum" for humanities. Thus,
>hum.history, hum.philosophy.misc, hum.arts.literature, etc.
That looks like an _excellent_ idea. The use of computers in the
humanities is ever increasing, and a top level domain would allow
schools (in particular) interested in these applications to focus
their interests more easily on pertinent articles, while allowing
those establishments subscribing only for commercially useful
information (and not finding it there) to select against such articles
more easily.
Of course, this could circle back to the (perpetual) arguments aobut
the need for a liberal education for, say, engineers, but let's not,
OK?
Jeff Dalton
>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.
T. William Wells
: >: Besides, Mr. Wells did not even post a charter for the proposed
: >: newsgroup. What is it supposed to discuss? Specifically, is it all
: >: of objectivism or only parts of it?
:
: >From the original posting:
:
: >: This newsgroup would exist for
: >: discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
: >: related topics.
:
: >Looks like a charter to me. And, to answer your question: all of
: >it.
:
: Is this your idea of a charter? I would have at least expected a
: summary of the key principles of Objectivism which would set the frame
: work for any new participant in the newsgroup.
That's a completely different thing. A charter, in this context,
indicates the purpose of the group, it is not an educational tool.
On the other hand, a monthly posting describing Objectivism and
its principles would not be a bad thing for the newsgroup.
: I would further expect
: that some qualifications be made such as whether the newsgroup is for
: studying Objectivism in detail from the view of a formal study or a
: free-wheeling discussion.
Except that I *deliberately* left out any qualification, since I
didn't want any restrictions.
Generally, one creates the general newsgroup first and then, if
the traffic warrants it, goes for the specific newsgroup.
T. William Wells
be a slight delay in the call for votes... -eliot]
(Apparently the original, posted on the 13th, didn't make it out.
Anyway, here's a new one, updated to correspond to the results of
the discussion so far.)
This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup:
talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for
discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
related topics.
I will issue a call for votes no earlier than January 27, provided
the flames have died down by then.
Gene W. Smith
(Lynne Ragazzini) writes:
>The opponents of Objectivism _as a whole_ can have their own
>discussions. I want to deal with the Galts, Reardens, Wyatts,
>Hugh Axtons and Dagny Taggarts of the net, not the Mouches,
>Boyles and Jim Taggarts.
It seems to me that what you want is a mailing list. Putting
stuff on the net with attitudes like the above will insure that
people will want to flame you. With a mailing list, you can
continue to live in your dream world, where you are a
super-creative, super-intelligent Wonder Woman out of 'Atlas
Shrugged'. In a newsgroup, if it is moderated in the usual way
(which allows for opposing opinions to be voiced) you will have
to deal with the real world--and in the real world, the
Objectivists generally lose the argument, because on average
(with a few exceptions) they tend to be less educated, less
intelligent, and less capable of rational thought than their
opponents.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is
the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We
do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason
Patrick May
In article <1990Jan26....@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsm...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes...
>Shrugged'. In a newsgroup, if it is moderated in the usual way
>(which allows for opposing opinions to be voiced) you will have
>to deal with the real world--and in the real world, the
>Objectivists generally lose the argument, because on average
>(with a few exceptions) they tend to be less educated, less
>intelligent, and less capable of rational thought than their
>opponents.
In almost every argument I have seen between an Objectivist and an anti-
Objectivist the Objectivist demonstrated the higher intelligence and
rationality. Their opponents, however, always claim victory by virtue of
refusing to apply rationality to their arguments. Often these discussions,
especially on the net, degenerate to the anti-Objectivist repeating refuted
assertions like a broken record and the Objectivist resigning in disgust.
Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the appropriate name/place for the proposed
newsgroup because Objectivism is based on the scientific method. One of
the highest virtues to an Objectivist is reason. Objectivism is based on
_objective_ reality and the use of Man's rational nature to understand that
reality. The fact that many people find these concepts so terrifying that
they resort to tactics such as those quoted above in an attempt to refute
them is indicative of the logical, scientific nature of Objectivism. It
seems that the power of reason is evident even to those who condemn and
fear it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A contract programmer is always intense."
may%nmese...@decwrl.dec.com
..!decwrl!nmeser.enet!may
Gene W. Smith
>In almost every argument I have seen between an Objectivist and an anti-
>Objectivist the Objectivist demonstrated the higher intelligence and
>rationality.
This is a matter of opinion, and is not worth arguing about. I
will say that not all Objectivists are fools, which I personally
find surprising.
>Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the appropriate name/place for the
>proposed newsgroup because Objectivism is based on the scientific
>method.
I have studied science, the philosophy of science, and
Objectivism, and can assure you that this is false. Further
argument on your ludicrous assertion can wait until and if an
Objectivism group is created. Your demonstration of your
soi-disant higher intelligence and rationality (as exemplified,
no doubt, in the insightful remark above) will be eagerly
awaited.
>The fact that many people find these concepts so terrifying that
>they resort to tactics such as those quoted above in an attempt
>to refute them is indicative of the logical, scientific nature of
>Objectivism.
In other words the fact I, a scientist* , find Objectivists to
be often irrational and anti-scientific is evidence for the
opposite claim? I see.
In any case, the question is whether an Objectivism group
belongs in 'sci' is what is before us now. Your assertion that it
uses the scientific method is factually false, and your argument
that the fact I think it is not scientific provides evidence that
it is is worthless. If you have a point relevant to this question
which you can support by either facts or reasoning by all means
try. The experience (no doubt a new one) would do you good.
*My opinion being that mathematics counts as one of the sciences.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?" -- 'The Satanic Verses'
Patrick May
In article <1990Jan27....@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsm...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes...
>In article <6...@arkham.enet.dec.com>, may@28182 (Patrick May) writes:
>
>>In almost every argument I have seen between an Objectivist and an anti-
>>Objectivist the Objectivist demonstrated the higher intelligence and
>>rationality.
>
> This is a matter of opinion, and is not worth arguing about. I
>will say that not all Objectivists are fools, which I personally
>find surprising.
This is more a matter of experience and interpretation than of opinion,
but since I can think of no objective method of settling the question I
will agree that it is not currently worth arguing about.
>>Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the appropriate name/place for the
>>proposed newsgroup because Objectivism is based on the scientific
>>method.
>
> I have studied science, the philosophy of science, and
>Objectivism, and can assure you that this is false. Further
>argument on your ludicrous assertion can wait until and if an
>Objectivism group is created. Your demonstration of your
>soi-disant higher intelligence and rationality (as exemplified,
>no doubt, in the insightful remark above) will be eagerly
>awaited.
Your response is nothing more than an argument from authority (and
arrogance). If you deign to respond again to someone who so obviously
misunderstands basic scientific philosophy (my M.I.T. degree
notwithstanding), please enlighten me with some logical arguments.
My statement was based on the _fact_ that a major premise of Objectivism
is that reality exists and can be understood by the use of reason.
Conclusions are subject to rational analysis and those found lacking are
reexamined or refuted. While philosophy and ethics may not be hard
sciences, when approached in this manner they are at least as worthy of
the label 'science' as, say, sociology or psychology.
>>The fact that many people find these concepts so terrifying that
>>they resort to tactics such as those quoted above in an attempt
>>to refute them is indicative of the logical, scientific nature of
>>Objectivism.
>
> In other words the fact I, a scientist* , find Objectivists to
>be often irrational and anti-scientific is evidence for the
>opposite claim? I see.
I made this observation based on your ad hominem attacks against
Objectivism, the major point of which seemed to be that you thought
Objectivists were stupid. I drew the conclusion (based on insufficient
evidence, I now admit) that you were a typical ethical relativist or
nihilist who rejected reason because your belief system would not
stand up to logical inspection. I will withhold further comments of
that type until more evidence is available, whereupon I will either
expound upon them or offer my apologies.
What you seem to be saying (in another argument from authority and
arrogance) is that you find certain people who call themselves
Objectivists to be ignorant, irrational, and anti-scientific. I
agree with you that there are such people and I regret that you are
not the only person for whom they have corrupted Objectivism. These
people, however, are not the philosophy. If you wish to argue
against sci.philosophy.objectivism, demonstrate the un-scientific
nature of the philosophy (if you can), not the irrationality of it's
self-styled proponents.
> In any case, the question is whether an Objectivism group
>belongs in 'sci' is what is before us now. Your assertion that it
>uses the scientific method is factually false, and your argument
>that the fact I think it is not scientific provides evidence that
>it is is worthless. If you have a point relevant to this question
>which you can support by either facts or reasoning by all means
>try. The experience (no doubt a new one) would do you good.
I quote this passage in full because you could use some of your own
advice. I have answered your assertions with reason. If you can
prove me wrong I will be willing to admit it. If you can't or won't
then I expect the same courtesy. The experience would do you good.
J. S. B'ach
)In almost every argument I have seen between an Objectivist and an anti-
)Objectivist the Objectivist demonstrated the higher intelligence and
)rationality. Their opponents, however, always claim victory by virtue of
)refusing to apply rationality to their arguments. Often these discussions,
)especially on the net, degenerate to the anti-Objectivist repeating refuted
)assertions like a broken record and the Objectivist resigning in disgust.
)
)Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the appropriate name/place for the proposed
)newsgroup because Objectivism is based on the scientific method. ....
The first paragraph demonstrates reason enough for Objectivists
to have their own newsgroup -- for their benefit, and ours. As
for the "sci" prefix: well, if we have to see "Objectivism" now
and then (as part of the newsgroup list) we might as well have
some humor with it.
Gene W. Smith
>>>Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the appropriate name/place for the
>>>proposed newsgroup because Objectivism is based on the scientific
>>>method.
>> I have studied science, the philosophy of science, and
>>Objectivism, and can assure you that this is false.
>Your response is nothing more than an argument from authority (and
>arrogance).
In other words, your opinions are "experience and
interpretations", not opinions. My opinions, even when based on
considerable expertise, are argument from authority and
arrogance. I see. How very rational of you.
>If you deign to respond again to someone who so obviously
>misunderstands basic scientific philosophy (my M.I.T. degree
>notwithstanding), please enlighten me with some logical
>arguments.
I'll be off the net for a few days, and this is not the proper
group for it. If you want to move it to talk.philosophy.misc,
you're on. Post a short article explaining why Objectivism should
be seen as based on scientific methodology.
>I made this observation based on your ad hominem attacks against
>Objectivism, the major point of which seemed to be that you thought
>Objectivists were stupid.
Actually, I said that Objectivists weren't always stupid. I
was not thinking of *you* however when I made that concession.
>I drew the conclusion (based on insufficient evidence, I now
>admit) that you were a typical ethical relativist or nihilist who
>rejected reason because your belief system would not stand up to
>logical inspection.
Your so called "conclusion" was based on absolutely no evidence
at all, and in fact is entirely false.
>What you seem to be saying (in another argument from authority and
>arrogance) is that you find certain people who call themselves
>Objectivists to be ignorant, irrational, and anti-scientific.
Precisely.
>I agree with you that there are such people and I regret that you
>are not the only person for whom they have corrupted Objectivism.
In other words, I was arguing from authority and arrogance
when I made that claim. By sheer luck it turns out I was
right. *You* can say this, and in your case it is not
an argument from authority and arrogance. Is this an
adequate summary?
>If you wish to argue against sci.philosophy.objectivism,
>demonstrate the un-scientific nature of the philosophy (if you
>can), not the irrationality of it's self-styled proponents.
I'll just repeat what various people have been pointing out:
philosophy is not an established science according to the modern
usage of "science", which is the usage intended by the authors of
the guidelines. Nor, as philosophy, is there anything
particularly scientific about Objectivism. It is pro-science in
theory (not always in practice) *ideologically*, but that is
hardly the same thing.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720
"What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?" J.M. Barrie
T. William Wells
: [Given that I'm posting the call for discussion now, I assume there will
: be a slight delay in the call for votes... -eliot]
:
: (Apparently the original, posted on the 13th, didn't make it out.
: Anyway, here's a new one, updated to correspond to the results of
: the discussion so far.)
:
: This is a call for discussion for a new newsgroup:
: talk.philosophy.objectivism. This newsgroup would exist for
: discussion of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and
: related topics.
:
: I will issue a call for votes no earlier than January 27, provided
: the flames have died down by then.
Just in case anyone is confused: I posted the message to
news.announce.newusers separately from the one I cross-posted
everywhere else. Apparently, the one to n.a.n. got lost in the
mail but, obviously, the posting made it out.
As to the vote date, I'm waiting till the current controversy is
either settled or appears to be unresolvable.