SPO CHARTER
r.w.stubblefield
On Forming SPO
1. Background
The current move to start a group for discussing Objectivism
started after I posted an article at the first of the year in
sci.philosophy.tech listing the titles of the articles I had
posted there during 1989. I had posted roughly two articles a week
since August--a short article with questions one week and a longer
article with anwers the following week. I always edited the messages
so that the total (questions + answers) would fit on two typewritten
pages. Here is an excerpt from the posting that has led to me
trying to form SPO.
Message-ID: <69...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
The private response to the postings of questions and answers
discussed by a group of people studying Objectivism at AT&T-Bell
Labs have been worthwhile enough to prompt me to look forward
to another year.
Several people were dismayed at the prospect of me continuing to
use SPT as I had. They suggested that I see if I could have a more
appropriate group formed for things that I (and others who had been
attracted to SPT by its name and the Spafford description) might want to
discuss. My first reaction was that since the group that would be
best for my purposes would be sci.philosophy.objectivism (as I will
explain below) and since there are so many vocal posters who think
of Objectivism as a cult, that there was no chance of meeting the
constraints for forming such a group. Private mail and some SPT
articles have now convinced me otherwise.
2. The Name--SPO
Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the best name for a newsgroup that
would contain what I want to read and contribute to.
Sci--because of the approach I intend to use and would like to see
others use in such discussions. What is scientific about it is
that conclusions should be drawn from observations of reality.
Neither "Ayn Rand says so" nor "I just feel it's so" should be used as
a premise for a conclusion. [Some people object that philosophy is not
scientific because of the impossibility of repeatable experiments;
but this same objection could be raised of any of the sciences
involving human action--for example, economics.]
Philosophy--because fundamental principles, at the base of all
other human knowledge, will be the content. All five branches
of philosophy will be discussed. [I felt very constrained in
SPT to frame any comments I wanted to make on ethics, politics,
or esthetics as examples illustrating some technical epistemological
point. I would expect an SPO audience to be able to see many such
connections without me laboring to illustrate how epistemology is
relevant to the principles in the derivative branches.]
Objectivism--because I would like to discuss things with people who
have already grasped the fact that Ayn Rand has identified a set of
fundamental principles that integrate to make a philosophy. I
would like most of the contributors to have actually read the
relevant works by Ayn Rand before making any lengthy comments on a
topic. I don't want to exclude all posters who question her
conclusions. Rational, reality-based, logical opponents asking
specific questions would be welcome.
3. Charter
For the charter I propose the following:
sci.philosophy.objectivism for those who grasp that philosophy is
a science and are interested in studying Ayn Rand's philosophy
of Objectivism. The primary content is intended to be
reasoned analysis of philosophic principles (and their
applications) based on facts of reality.
This current posting (in total) comprises a longer explanation of the
charter. Note that the word "primarily" will allow the contributions
of announcements, publications, classes, club meetings and such as
long as they are interesting to people studying Objectivism. It also
allows the derivative use by honest, polite, serious folks who are not
studying it but want to learn more about Objectivism.
4. Quality
Several things will help SPO continue to have the quality I (and I
hope others) desire.
a) The precise wording above should be used in Gene Spafford's list
of newsgroups.
b) This notice (as modified after the discussion phase) should be
posted monthly.
c) Guidelines that rational people should follow to attenuate noise
of irrational posters should be posted monthly.
[To be effective, these guidelines should be able to be announced
and adhered to after a newsgroup is established. The only power of
enforcing them is the power of reason--persuasion of rational
people that following them will be of mutual benefit. An example
of such a guideline is "Never issue a public response to a posting
you consider inappropriate to a newsgroup." Arguments for such
voluntary self-control would have to be made, of course. I will
initiate a discussion here for such guidelines after I've had more
time to organize my thoughts and arguments on this issue.]
d) Style guidelines arrived at within the newsgroup should be
posted monthly.
[I have some style guidelines that were well received on the now-
defunct ORION objectivism mailing list that I intend to propose.
(It was after ORION was unable to handle that list's load
last June that I searched for and settled on SPT as the most
appropriate home for me and people who shared my interests.)]
e) Guidelines for expressing disagreement should be posted
monthly.
[I also have some ideas for this. Emotion is OK, hostility is
out; i.e., rational flaming is fine. Search for the most
fundamental point of disagreement and address only that. Address
the idea, not the person. My conclusions and arguments on this are
also intended for another posting.]
f) Maybe give a hierarchical list of principles and suggest that
someone who disagrees find the most fundamental point of
disagreement on the list and spend time trying to understand the
Objectivist position on that.
g) To avoid any difficulty with any legal representatives of Ayn
Rand's estate, the following disclaimer applies to postings in SPO:
the intent of this group is not to represent Objectivism but to
provide a forum for studying it.
h) The only action needed by system administrators should be to
prevent the only way someone can initiate (indirect) force; i.e.,
they need to remove USENET privileges of those who fraudently put
their words under the signatures of others.
Bob Stubblefield 1/90
--
Bob Stubblefield att!houxa!bobs 201-949-2846
r.w.stub...@ATT.COM
T. William Wells
: Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the best name for a newsgroup that
: would contain what I want to read and contribute to.
Translation: I want sci, I want it, I WANT IT, WAAHHHHHH!!!!!!
We've heard this kind of garbage before. And we know what it is
worth.
Again, from the newusers postings:
"sci" Discussions intended as technical in nature and relating
to the established sciences.
A number of people have argued for sci on the basis that
discussions would be technical or that Objectivism is a science.
Both arguments are bogus. First, read the above sentence. Note
that the adjectival clause contains a *conjunction*. For the semi-
literate, that is the word "and" in the sentence; it indicates
that *both* conjuncts apply. Thus the adjectival clause says
that, not only must the newsgroups be devoted to the technical
aspects of something, but that that something must be a science.
And not just any science either, but *established* science.
Regardless of whether we approve or not of the established
sciences, or of the methodology used by them, the term
"established science" has a fairly definite meaning.
And Objectivism is most certainly not one of the "established
sciences".
In short, the sci hierarchy is wholly inappropriate for a group
devoted to general discussions of Objectivism.
---
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
the woodwork people who wanted moderation but hadn't posted.
In that I was disappointed. And, accordingly, I changed my
proposal.
However, the issue of whether sci or talk is appropriate for
general philosophy is really open and shut. Because of that,
there really is no point in further discussion. But because I
want the sci idea thoroughly discredited, and expect a poll to
accomplish this, I'm going to run another one.
So, reply to this article, or send e-mail to po...@twwells.com, and
say whether you want *.philosophy.objectivism in sci or talk.
I'll post the results in a few days.
r.w.stubblefield
On Forming SPO
1. Background
2. The Name--SPO
Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the best name for a newsgroup that
would contain what I want to read and contribute to.
Sci--because of the approach I intend to use and would like to see
David Bombardier
I support Bob Stubblefield's proposed charter for sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Also, his suggestions for maintaining the quality of a moderated newsgroup on
an unmoderated newsgroup are excellent.
The issue that seems to be most controversial is the placement of the
newsgroup in the hierarchy. Philosophy in general, and Objectivism in
particular, is a science. The proposed Objectivist newsgroup belongs in the
sci hierarchy, as opposed to talk (or soc).
-- David Bombardier
dem...@iitmax.iit.edu
Patrick May
In article <1990Jan27....@twwells.com>, bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes...
>However, the issue of whether sci or talk is appropriate for
>general philosophy is really open and shut. Because of that,
>there really is no point in further discussion. But because I
>want the sci idea thoroughly discredited, and expect a poll to
>accomplish this, I'm going to run another one.
I do not mean to suggest in any way that you are unethical, but as I do
not know you and you do hold a rather strong opinion on this topic, I
will state my support of sci.philosophy.objectivism in public instead of
answering your poll privately. Please log this response as my vote for
using the sci. hierarchy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A contract programmer is always intense."
may%nmese...@decwrl.dec.com
..!decwrl!nmeser.enet!may
Mehul Dave
writes:
I agree with this. Any suggestions about the charter?
--
--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
"To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
Mehul Dave
>In article <76...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> r...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (r.w.stubblefield) writes:
>: Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the best name for a newsgroup that
>: would contain what I want to read and contribute to.
>
>Translation: I want sci, I want it, I WANT IT, WAAHHHHHH!!!!!!
Mr. "guy who shows instead of asserting", please *show* how this follows
from Mr. Stubblefield's post.
>We've heard this kind of garbage before. And we know what it is worth.
No, "we" know no such thing. Perhaps you would care to enlighten so
many posters who have supported the "sci" hierarchy besides myself.
>A number of people have argued for sci on the basis that
>discussions would be technical or that Objectivism is a science.
No, people have argued that *philosophy* is a science and that Objectivism
is a philosophy. Which leads me to,
>And not just any science either, but *established* science.
>Regardless of whether we approve or not of the established
>sciences, or of the methodology used by them, the term
>"established science" has a fairly definite meaning.
>
>And Objectivism is most certainly not one of the "established
>sciences".
Please reread the postings that argue for the "sci" hierarchy. They
have claimed that *philosophy* is a science. I asked you before and
I ask you again. Can you tell us why philosophy is not a science?
Some others have atleast presented arguments against our position even
if I don't agree with them. If you don't have arguments against us,
atleast stop your baseless diatribes.
Peter da Silva
the objectivists would be an exception to the general rule of debate in this
group: either a full-tilt flame war, or an endless round of unsupported and
unsupportable assertions petering out long after everyone runs out of things
to say (not to mention interest).
Alas, 'twas not to be so. And, worse, it's the objectivists by and large that
are making the unsupported assertions. The one exception being T. William
Wells... who's calling for a *talk*.philosophy.objectivism. Let's stand out
of the way and let him have his vote.
--
_--_|\ 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?" `-_-'
Dinah B. Schein
Thinking that it is best to post my vote publicly, I stand firmly
in favor of SCI.philosophy.Objectivism. As has already been explained on
here, philosophy is indeed a science. No one's screams to the contrary
will change this fact.
Dinah B. Schein
dsc...@neon.stanford.edu
Peter da Silva
> No, people have argued that *philosophy* is a science and that Objectivism
> is a philosophy.
You have asserted that philosophy is a science. Other people have asserted that
it isn't. The arguments on your side (correct me if I'm wrong on this) reduce
to the fact that philosophy is important and therefore must be a science. Or
that philosophy is rigorous and therefore must be a science.
Alas, this does not follow. There are many fields of human endeavour that are
extremely important, parenting for example, that are in no wise a science. As
to whether philosophy is rigorous, you'll have to explain how this permits
eastern philosophies that reject the whole notion of scientific rigor and
experimentalism to be considered part of the fold. I'm sure there are thousands
if not millions of Buddhist and Taoist philosophers who would be quite offended
by such a definition.
T. William Wells
: >discussions would be technical or that Objectivism is a science.
:
: No, people have argued that *philosophy* is a science and that Objectivism
: is a philosophy. Which leads me to,
By this, you have demonstrated that you completely misunderstood
my posting. I'll try again, with simple sentences, so that
_maybe_ you will understand. Read carefully, and do try to engage
your faculty of reason.
Objectivism is a science, since "science" means `organized body
of knowledge'.
But that is irrelevant, since "science" as used in the definition
of `sci' is not unqualified.
It says `established sciences'.
This means the generally accepted sciences.
It does not many any subject which has a body of organized
knowledge.
You won't find `sci.pottery' there.
Or `sci.oil-painting'.
Or `sci.water-skiing'.
Or `sci.hacking'.
Or `sci.legal'.
Or `sci.theology'.
Get it? All of these have an organized body of knowledge
associated with them, but aren't sci groups.
The sci group includes, with one one or two anomalies, exactly
four types of subjects:
The physical, biological, and social sciences.
Technology related to those sciences.
Other subjects closely related to one of those sciences.
Mathematics
Neither philosophy, nor Objectivism, fits any of these categories.
: >And not just any science either, but *established* science.
: >Regardless of whether we approve or not of the established
: >sciences, or of the methodology used by them, the term
: >"established science" has a fairly definite meaning.
: >
: >And Objectivism is most certainly not one of the "established
: >sciences".
:
: Please reread the postings that argue for the "sci" hierarchy. They
: have claimed that *philosophy* is a science.
So?
A is a variety of B, B is an established science, therefore A is
an established science, is false.
If one were to completely ignore the context of the sci hierarchy
and were to engage in rationalistic logic, one could argue that
there should be a sci.philosophy newsgroup, since philosophy is
an accepted body of knowledge.
But one could not extend that to Objectivism, Objectivism is not
one of the generally accepted philosophies.
Peter da Silva
> As has already been explained on here, philosophy is indeed a science.
> No one's screams to the contrary will change this fact.
Since you are the one requesting positive action, the burden of proof remains
with you. Or, to paraphrase you: science is a philosophy, not vice versa, and
no-one's assertions to the contrary will change that fact.
T. William Wells
: In article <1990Jan27....@twwells.com>, bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes...
: >However, the issue of whether sci or talk is appropriate for
: >general philosophy is really open and shut. Because of that,
: >there really is no point in further discussion. But because I
: >want the sci idea thoroughly discredited, and expect a poll to
: >accomplish this, I'm going to run another one.
:
: I do not mean to suggest in any way that you are unethical,
But you have and you do believe so, or you wouldn't have posted
your note. I do not accept this kind of mealy-mouthed bullshit.
: but as I do
: not know you and you do hold a rather strong opinion on this topic,
No kidding. Just like I hold a strong opinion on moderation for
the group. In case you weren't there, my desire for moderation was
thoroughly trounced and I'm now proposing an unmoderated group.
: I
: will state my support of sci.philosophy.objectivism in public
Goody for you.
: instead of
: answering your poll privately. Please log this response as my vote for
: using the sci. hierarchy.
No.
I see no good reason to accept your response if you won't trust me
to count it accurately. After all, were I dishonest, there are
many ways I could cheat. And there is no way you could tell the
difference. All you can do is assume that I won't.
You can either do like everyone else does and send your response
to the mailbox or you can be not counted. Your choice.
T. William Wells
they'll accuse you of "equivocating" when you don't use a word
they way the want you to.
This time, however, the shoe is on the other foot. The position
for sci rests on an equivocation between two definitions of the
word "science".
The definition of science they are relying on is `organized body
of knowledge'. Yes, it is a valid definition. And yes, Objectivism
is an organized body of knowledge. So, in that sense, Objectivism
is a science. So also is creation science. Ugh.
The other definition of science, the one that is operative in the
sci hierarchy, is the science of "science and technology".
Obviously, no general philosophy, including Objectivism, qualifies
under that definition of science.
I doubt that the Objectivists who are equivocating will be paying
any attention, so you can expect to see more debate wherein they
continue to assert that Objectivism is a science. Regardless of
the irrelevancy of that point.
Since that point has been adequately dealt with, there is no
further reason for answering them. However, for those that do,
please feel free to borrow my signature quote. :-)
David Bombardier
Several individuals have stated that those of us who support placing the
proposed Objectivist newsgroup in the sci hierarchy have not justified our
position. In fact, there have been lengthy justifications posted in the
last few weeks.
In his recent proposed charter, Bob Stubblefield gave a concise explanation
for placing the newsgroup in the sci hierarchy. It has been ignored.
A couple weeks ago, two lengthy postings by Robert Garmong and Mehul Dave
presented excellent arguments for placing the newsgroup in the sci hierarchy.
They have been largely ignored. Perhaps these individuals could re-post the
sections of their postings relevant to the issue?
Since the arguments for placing the newsgroup in the sci hierarchy have been
presented and ignored I'm not going to present them again. But I do have a
couple of related points:
It is not only Ayn Rand that regarded philosophy as a science. Many
philosophers have held this view, enough philosophers to make philosophy
an "established" science. Perhaps some of the philosophy students on the
net could provide a list of philosophers holding philosophy as a science.
Fields in the humanities and social sciences that are included in the sci
hiearchy include education, language, economics, psychology and philosophy
(these are only the ones that come to mind immediately). Even if these groups
did _not_ exist, the sci hierarchy would be the proper place for the
newsgroup, given the nature of philosophy in general and Objectivism in
paticular.
If a hiearchy (or two) were established for the humanities and social
sciences, I would not be opposed to placing the Objectivist newsgroup there.
In that scenario, the sci hierarchy could exist strictly for the natural
sciences. But now, the sci hiearchy is for established sciences, not strictly
natural sciences. Relegating a newsgroup devoted to a serious, technical
philosophy to the talk hierarchy is an injustice. There are those who
disagree. This is not surprising, given the nature of their postings, whose
style belongs to the talk, not the sci, hierarchy.
-- David Bombardier
dem...@iitmax.iit.edu
David Bombardier
A postscript to my posting:
I said that relegating a newsgroup devoted to a serious, technical philosophy
to the talk hierarchy was an injustice. I did not realize how much of an
injustice this would be until I took a look at what newsgroups are in the talk
hierarchy. Here is the list. (Remember that the sci hierarchy includes
fields in the humanities and social sciences.)
talk.abortion
talk.bizarre
talk.origins
talk.philosophy.misc
talk.politics.guns
talk.politics.mideast
talk.politics.misc
talk.politics.soviet
talk.politics.theory
talk.rape
talk.religion.misc
talk.religion.newage
talk.rumors
It doesn't matter what your view is concerning Objectivism or the proposed
Objectivist newsgroup to realize that the newsgroup does not belong here!
Philosophy is a serious, academic discipline. It is fundamentally dissimilar
from topics such as politics, religion, abortion, rape and rumors. (I would
say that talk.philosophy.misc is also fundamentally dissimilar from these
topics.) Placing the newsgroup in the talk hierarchy would be akin to a
university dismantling its philosophy department and creating a student
organization to replace it.
-- David Bombardier
dem...@iitmax.iit.edu
Evan Leibovitch
>Several individuals have stated that those of us who support placing the
>proposed Objectivist newsgroup in the sci hierarchy have not justified our
>position. In fact, there have been lengthy justifications posted in the
>last few weeks.
And the ones worth debate have been rejected. With explanation.
>They have been largely ignored. Perhaps these individuals could re-post the
>sections of their postings relevant to the issue?
Re-stating an opinion that has been rejected by many won't change the
issue or the rejections. If the reasons for putting objectivism in sci.*
are no better than the ones which have been presented, the case is pretty
lame. Even worse than for fishies.
>It is not only Ayn Rand that regarded philosophy as a science. Many
>philosophers have held this view, enough philosophers to make philosophy
>an "established" science. Perhaps some of the philosophy students on the
>net could provide a list of philosophers holding philosophy as a science.
I gained my undergrad degree in philosophy, occupying my time mainly with
courses in ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics and logic. The degree
was granted by the university's arts faculty, a fact which was never
questioned even though this school has a well-respected science faculty.
It was my own impression that science is a philsophy, not vice versa.
There are certain elements of philosophy which can withstand the rigors
of empiracle and deductive analysis - but some, especially discussions
which boil down to subjectives like 'right' and 'wrong' (like ethics),
defy anything I'd consider scientific methods of evaluation.
For instance, the assertion that a Supreme Being created the earth
defies most "scientific" scrutiny, though it is most definitely an
integral part of a very popular philosophy. Being unscientific does
not affect the value (or validity) of a philosophy.
While science is certainly one path (or more) to developing a philosophy,
blind faith can just as valid as a basis for a different philosophy.
>It is not only Ayn Rand that regarded philosophy as a science. Many
>philosophers have held this view, enough philosophers to make philosophy
>an "established" science. Perhaps some of the philosophy students on the
>net could provide a list of philosophers holding philosophy as a science.
Objectivist philosophers are perfectly free to determine that objectivism
has (or does not have) its roots in scientific and/or logical thought.
Dandy. But it must likely have, as a foundation, some assumptions about the
innate nature of man which may never be unabiguously provable by scientific
means.
>Fields in the humanities and social sciences that are included in the sci
>hiearchy include education, language, economics, psychology and philosophy
>(these are only the ones that come to mind immediately).
All of these have scientific elements, but it does not follow that they
are sciences. Even disciplines which include the word "science" in their
titles (computer science, political science), may contain non-scientific
elements.
>Relegating a newsgroup devoted to a serious, technical
>philosophy to the talk hierarchy is an injustice.
You wanna talk philosophy? Deep, not-necessarily-scientific philosophy?
Great. What is it about your personal beliefs that makes the proposal
"unjust" (especially since you have presented it as a statement of fact
rather than an opinion?) Since I do not believe it to be unjust, we must
have differing ideas of what consititutes justice.
(Remember when answering, that since you have stated philosophy is a
science, you must use scientific methods to prove your reasoning.
I, since I do not believe this, have no such constraints.)
>There are those who
>disagree. This is not surprising, given the nature of their postings, whose
>style belongs to the talk, not the sci, hierarchy.
I see.
When you speak, it's science. If someone disagrees with you, it's talk.
Sigh.
--
The Northwest Territories: | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software
Where men are men, women | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
are scarce, and caribou are | ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan
very careful how they walk. | (416) 452-0504
Roger Tang
>Objectivist newsgroup to realize that the newsgroup does not belong here!
>Philosophy is a serious, academic discipline. It is fundamentally dissimilar
>from topics such as politics, religion, abortion, rape and rumors. (I would
From the last three perhaps, but definitely not the first two. Or
are you putting philosophy in a hierarchical level above that of religion and
politics? That's not something that occurs in academic areas either; both
political study and religious studies also demand and get serious academic
study and require (in the academic environment) serious discipline and study.
It sounds more like a call for another top-level hierarchy group
than a good arguement to put this group into sci. The discipline of the
sciences, it seems to me, are somewhat distinct and different from the
religious and philosophical groups.....
Robert Tracinski
>In article <32...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> dem...@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes:
>>It doesn't matter what your view is concerning Objectivism or the proposed
>>Objectivist newsgroup to realize that the newsgroup does not belong here!
>>Philosophy is a serious, academic discipline. It is fundamentally dissimilar
>>from topics such as politics, religion, abortion, rape and rumors. (I would
>
> From the last three perhaps, but definitely not the first two.
Political philosophy and political science are sciences and are similar in that
respect to philosophy. Thus, they would belong in the sci.* hierarchy. But
talk.politics.guns and groups of that variety deal only with derivative issues
in the practice, not the theory, of politics. Religion is dissimilar in method
from philosophy, as it is customary in the latter field to attempt to give
reasons for one's position. Religion is clearly not only unscientific but
actively anti-scientific. Hence, your argument does not hold: politics and
religion are not fundamentally similar to philosophy (although religion does
have some similarities) and, thus, philosophy does not belong with them.
-Robert Tracinski
rw...@tank.uchicago.edu
Miron Cuperman
>: I do not mean to suggest in any way that you are unethical,
>But you have and you do believe so, or you wouldn't have posted
>your note. I do not accept this kind of mealy-mouthed bullshit.
>: but as I do
>: not know you and you do hold a rather strong opinion on this topic,
>No kidding. Just like I hold a strong opinion on moderation for
>the group. In case you weren't there, my desire for moderation was
>thoroughly trounced and I'm now proposing an unmoderated group.
>: will state my support of sci.philosophy.objectivism in public
>Goody for you.
Your language shows that you are immature. Therefore it is correct
to assume that your poll may be less than accurate. Therefore,
your poll will have no value to me.
To the matter at hand:
Philosophy should be an established science. In my opinion any
philosophy should follow these guidelines:
1. Its axioms must be based on applied sciences.
2. All its theorems must be logically derived from its axioms.
A philosophy that follows these guidelines is indistinguishable from
established sciences. Therefore such a philosophy must be an
established science. Therefore such all such philosophies should be
discussed in the a sci hierarchy: sci.philosophy.*
On the surface Objectivism seems at least as rigorous as any social
science. The axioms of Objectivism seem to be well grounded in applied
science (Economics, Psychology mostly). Therefore, it should be
checked whether Objectivism actually does follow these guidelines. If
so, I will be in favor of sci.philosophy.objectivism. Otherwise,
talk.philosophy.objectivism will be my choice.
Miron Cuperman <mi...@cs.sfu.ca>
Evan Leibovitch
>Political philosophy and political science are sciences and are similar in that
>respect to philosophy.
Political philosophy and political science both must deal with notably
unscientific methodoly from time to time. Trying to understand the
popularity of governments based on fundamentalist Islam, for instance,
using only scientific analysis will produce an incomplete understanding
of the situation. Just ask Jimmy Carter :-).
>Religion is dissimilar in method from philosophy,
Religion IS philosophy. I challenge you to *prove* (not just assert) otherwise.
>as it is customary in the latter field to attempt to give
>reasons for one's position.
The reasons can't always be broken down by scientific analysis. Some
times one justifies an attitude by saying "I believe this merely because
I think it is the right thing." Though this reasoning can be considered
to be unscientific, it cannot be dismissed as not being a philosophy.
Very often, philosophical discussions reach a point at which scientific
evaluation is useless. Aethetics, for instance - try to use purely
analytical means to completely explain why you like one kind of music but
your friend (from the same cultural background) doesn't.
>Religion is clearly not only unscientific but
>actively anti-scientific.
True, though not always. Christian Scientists might vehemently disagree
with you on this blanket assertion.
Still, after you break through a superficial level of discussion, many
philosophical matters such as ethics and human rights can be described
the same way.
If you also allow that most religions are based on underlying
philosophies about the nature and origins of man, and the explanations
of things unknown, then you must agree that philosophy *may* contain
unscientific elements.
Roger Tang
>>In article <32...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> dem...@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes:
>>>It doesn't matter what your view is concerning Objectivism or the proposed
>>>Objectivist newsgroup to realize that the newsgroup does not belong here!
>>>Philosophy is a serious, academic discipline. It is fundamentally dissimilar
>>>from topics such as politics, religion, abortion, rape and rumors. (I would
>>
>> From the last three perhaps, but definitely not the first two.
>
>Political philosophy and political science are sciences and are similar in that
>respect to philosophy. Thus, they would belong in the sci.* hierarchy. But
>talk.politics.guns and groups of that variety deal only with derivative issues
>in the practice, not the theory, of politics.
Ahhhh.....then this is an admission there's nothing practical in all
this? (LIBERAL ;}, ok? Couldn't resist.....)
Still, let me clarify your point by restating: practical applications
of thoery, then do not belong in the sci. hierarchy, right? (THough it seems
to me that practical applications and theory are very hard to separate; in
most academic areas, this distinction isn;t made).
Religion is dissimilar in method
>from philosophy, as it is customary in the latter field to attempt to give
>reasons for one's position.
This is not true.
Religion is clearly not only unscientific but
>actively anti-scientific.
Again, not true, at least with respect to philosophy and disciplines
such as history.
Hence, your argument does not hold: politics and
>religion are not fundamentally similar to philosophy (although religion does
>have some similarities) and, thus, philosophy does not belong with them.
This does not follow. Derivative or not, political studies are
disciplines in and of themselves; certainly, this should not disqualify them
from the sci. hierarchy. (Remember, the basenote was that the proposed
group was fundamentally dissimilar with the talk. groups; I still see no
difference with two classes. This still suggests to me a different
hierarchy than sci.)
Hans Huttel
by David Bombardier (dem...@iitmax.iit.edu) ]
Several individuals have stated that those who support placing the
proposed Objectivist newsgroup in the sci hierarchy have not justified our
position. In fact, there have been lengthy justifications posted in the
last few weeks.
In a recent posting of mine, I gave a concise explanation
for placing the newsgroup in the rec.humor.* hierarchy. It has been ignored.
Since the arguments for placing the newsgroup in the rec.humor.* subhierarchy
have been presented and sadly ignored I'm not going to present them again.
But I do have a couple of related points:
It is not only Ayn Rand that regarded philosophy as humour. Many
other philosophers have held this view, enough philosophers to make themselves
ridiculous. Perhaps some of the philosophy students on the
net could provide a list of philosophers holding philosophy as humour.
The jokes in rec.humor and rec.humor.funny hiearchy include jokes about
education, language, economics, psychology and philosophy
(these are only the ones that come to mind immediately). Even if these jokes
did _not_ exist, the rec.humor subhierarchy would be the proper place for the
jokes about these matters, given the nature of life in general
and Objectivism in particular.
Relegating a newsgroup devoted to a hilarious, pseudo-technical
philosophy to the talk or sci hierarchy is an injustice. There are those who
disagree. This is not surprising, given the nature of their postings, whose
style belongs to the talk or not the rec.humor.* subhierarchy.
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
David Bombardier
In article <25C3EC...@telly.on.ca> ev...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
writes:
>It was my own impression that science is a philsophy, not vice versa.
>There are certain elements of philosophy which can withstand the rigors
>of empiracle and deductive analysis - but some, especially discussions
>which boil down to subjectives like 'right' and 'wrong' (like ethics),
>defy anything I'd consider scientific methods of evaluation.
Although you have a philosophy degree, you don't seem to understand the
fundamental role of and importance of philosophy. Philosophy studies the
fundamental nature of existence. It preceeds science (here I mean natural
science). The approach one takes in natural science depends on one's
philosophy. Compare the science of Ancient Greece, a culture where
philosophy was essentially pro-reason, with the "science" of the Middle Ages,
when the dominant philosophy was mystical, with the science of the
Enlightenment, when reason reinged in philosophy again. To call natural
science philosophy is to misunderstand the essence of philosophy and to
completely subjectivize natural science. This is not surprising, given your
next sentence, where you assert that issues of right and wrong (ethics) are
subjective. Maybe if sci.philosophy.objectivism is established, you can
find out there how Objectivism validates an objective ethics.
>For instance, the assertion that a Supreme Being created the earth
>defies most "scientific" scrutiny, though it is most definitely an
>integral part of a very popular philosophy. Being unscientific does
>not affect the value (or validity) of a philosophy.
So, it is a _wrong_, very popular philosophy. Being unscientific (i.e.,
not grounded in reality-based reason) affects both the validity and the
value of a philosophy. It makes it false and evil.
>Objectivist philosophers are perfectly free to determine that objectivism
>has (or does not have) its roots in scientific and/or logical thought.
>Dandy. But it must likely have, as a foundation, some assumptions about the
>innate nature of man which may never be unabiguously provable by scientific
>means.
Is that an element of faith or a statement based on reason? Is that a wish,
a fear, or what? What about the nature of man do you consider ambiguous?
>You wanna talk philosophy? Deep, not-necessarily-scientific philosophy?
>Great. What is it about your personal beliefs that makes the proposal
>"unjust" (especially since you have presented it as a statement of fact
>rather than an opinion?) Since I do not believe it to be unjust, we must
>have differing ideas of what consititutes justice.
I have no desire to discuss "not-necessarily-scientific" philosophy. The
subject of justice is no less scientific than that of ethics or concept-
formation. Placing the groups in the talk hierarchy is treating the subject
in a way which it does not deserve. That's injustice.
>(Remember when answering, that since you have stated philosophy is a
>science, you must use scientific methods to prove your reasoning.
>I, since I do not believe this, have no such constraints.)
I have indicated the basis in reality for all of my points. To _fully_
prove each would take volumes. These issues are dependent on a whole
hierarchical chain of philosophic principles which goes all the way back to
the beginnings of metaphysics. But, I hold it is possible to establish this
chain. That is where we differ. Again, if you want a better indication of
the Objectivist view, why don't you read Rand's works, or help us establish
sci.philosophy.objectivism? As far as your arguments go, you may have no
constraints in your mind. But, in mind, all arguments are subject to the
constraints of reason and reality.
-- David Bombardier
dem...@iitmax.iit.edu
Robert Garmong
should be a group for sci.politics, if not the same as talk.politics). As
far as religion, I do not consider it to be scientific. The methodology
of religion is the opposite of that of science. However, there would be a
place in sci.* for theology, which is the organized study of religious
systems.
--Robert Garmong
jeff daiell
>
> Relegating a newsgroup devoted to a hilarious, pseudo-technical
> philosophy to the talk or sci hierarchy is an injustice. There are those who
> disagree. This is not surprising, given the nature of their postings, whose
> style belongs to the talk or not the rec.humor.* subhierarchy.
Up until the above paragraph, the posting was cute. But I'd
like this person to give a rational explanation of why he finds
Objectivism hilarious. Otherwise, when listing rational persons,
my motto would have to be, "Look, Ma, no Hans!".
Jeff Daiell
Who is John Galt?
--
If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread,
Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead.
-- Don Paarlberg
Evan Leibovitch
To anyone lurking it must be apparent, that these folks are clearly dealing
with a political/economic agenda masquerading as an academic school of
thought. Sorta like Scientology without the fees.
Atlas Shrugged, meet Dianetics. See you both in talk.*.
In article <33...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> dem...@iitmax.iit.edu (David Bombardier) writes:
>Although you have a philosophy degree, you don't seem to understand the
>fundamental role of and importance of philosophy.
Well, I certainly don't understand the way you've twisted it to
suit your own goals. Somehow this doesn't surprise me.
>To call natural
>science philosophy is to misunderstand the essence of philosophy and to
>completely subjectivize natural science. This is not surprising, given your
>next sentence, where you assert that issues of right and wrong (ethics) are
>subjective.
There is a definite clash in philosophy between the schools of thought
known as Absolutism (Plato, Aristotle) and Relativism (David Hume), which
assert and deny respectively, that there is a single "good" to be sought
through reason alone.
Even many those who beleieved in Absolutism have had no pretences of
knowing what this ultimate good really is. And, in hindsight, we can
note that one of the earliest proponents of absolutism, Plato, advocated
slavery and believed in rule by the benevolent dictatorship of
"philosopher kings". There are certainly many who would disagree with
his concept of what constituted "absolute good".
>Maybe if sci.philosophy.objectivism is established, you can
>find out there how Objectivism validates an objective ethics.
Objective ethics, ie, The One And Only Truth (tm).
Can you guess what comes next?
(And if you're going to be talking about philosophy, how about finding
out the difference between ethics and morals? The gap is significant.)
>>For instance, the assertion that a Supreme Being created the earth
>>defies most "scientific" scrutiny, though it is most definitely an
>>integral part of a very popular philosophy. Being unscientific does
>>not affect the value (or validity) of a philosophy.
>So, it is a _wrong_, very popular philosophy. Being unscientific (i.e.,
>not grounded in reality-based reason) affects both the validity and the
>value of a philosophy. It makes it false and evil.
*BZZZT* Calling something false can be a statement of fact (which you
cannot do here, because you cannot prove the non-existence of God - you
can only demonstrate the lack of proof that God exists.)
But calling something wrong or evil is not the tone of a dispassionate
critique - it's the charged voice of those who would inhibit opposition,
censor, repress, eliminate the "evil" (on behalf, of course, of those
who don't know any better).
It is here (and other subtle places) that the political agenda of
Objectivism crawls into the open. The Word is That According to Ayn, and
those who do not believe (ie, do not accept the "objective ethics")
are either naiive or evil.
In other words, it's just another religion, based on belief in self and
personal property rather than a supreme being or community, and
attempting to justify itself on "scientific" grounds.
What a religion - become an Objectivist, and you're your own God!
>>Objectivist philosophers are perfectly free to determine that objectivism
>>has (or does not have) its roots in scientific and/or logical thought.
>>Dandy. But it must likely have, as a foundation, some assumptions about the
>>innate nature of man which may never be unabiguously provable by scientific
>>means.
>
>Is that an element of faith or a statement based on reason? Is that a wish,
>a fear, or what? What about the nature of man do you consider ambiguous?
Everything. There have been volumes written on this subject alone. There
are at least seven different and distinct theories on the innate nature
of man that I know of - eight, I guess, if you count Rand. There could
easily be more. Last I heard, they have not yet been rationally distilled
into a single "right" one...
>I have no desire to discuss "not-necessarily-scientific" philosophy.
So you admit that such philosophy exists, no?
>The
>subject of justice is no less scientific than that of ethics or concept-
>formation. Placing the groups in the talk hierarchy is treating the subject
>in a way which it does not deserve. That's injustice.
That's not scientific. And if this is at all typical of the Objectivist way
to substantiate claims, I suggest there is little at all about it that has
to do with science.
>I have indicated the basis in reality for all of my points.
No you haven't. You've launched a flurry of wildly unfounded assumptions
without backing of your own, with logical holes big enough to fly the
space shuttle through, and sit back in amazement that everyone hasn't
been hit by the same bolt of lightening as you.
>Again, if you want a better indication of
>the Objectivist view, why don't you read Rand's works, or help us establish
>sci.philosophy.objectivism?
I'll be more than happy to help you set up shop next to the other
religions and philosophy discussions - in talk. All you've done in your
argument is show that Objectivism, in its intent as well as its dogma,
is a religion with political and economic overtones - no more, no less.
Gene Spafford
Discussion on issues of guns, politics, abortion, etc. are all
grounded in issues of philosophy, principally ethics. The fact that
some of the posters to those groups in the talk hierarchy yell rather
than debate is a reflection on their immaturity rather than the nature
of the topic.
My personal view of the hierarchies is as follows (order of decisions
IS significant):
if (topic is about the Usenet, groups or software)
hierarchy is news
elif (topic is about computers)
hierarchy is comp
elif (topic concerns things that can be measured, and experiments
performed and REPLICATED)
hierarchy is sci
elif (topic will generate extensive discussion, much of which is
unlikely to convince or educate the majority of readers)
hierarchy is talk
elif (topic concerns hobby or recreational activity)
hierarchy is rec
elif (topic concerns social issues {i.e., a law might be passed about
this topic, or a government agency might regulate it})
hierarhcy is soc
else
hierarchy is misc
Applying this clearly puts philosophy groups in talk.
If the proposed group is such a great idea, it should help raise the
level and image of "talk" from the (mistaken) view that of some kind of
ghetto for "useless" groups.
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: sp...@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
David Joslin
> Placing the newsgroup in the talk hierarchy would be akin to a
>university dismantling its philosophy department and creating a student
>organization to replace it.
Perhaps it would be more akin to giving philosophy students
BA degrees instead of BS degrees.
David
Eric J Peterson
|
| It is not only Ayn Rand that regarded philosophy as a science. Many
| philosophers have held this view, enough philosophers to make philosophy
| an "established" science. Perhaps some of the philosophy students on the
| net could provide a list of philosophers holding philosophy as a science.
I heard a commercial recently that said that Acura cars were ranked "Best
In Their Class" or something similar by -- guess who? -- Acura owners.
Does this make it the best?
I am sure that many astrologers "have held the view" that their discipline
is a science. Does this make it a science?
Many Scientologists claim that their organization is a religion. Does that
make it a religion?
This is the sort of faulty appeal to authority that has plagued the
discussion of *.philosophy.objectivism. While there does seem to be more
than sufficient interest and motivation for the creation of an Objectivism
news group, I cannot see how arguments such as this merit a sci.* group.
Talk.* seems much more appropriate.
--
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
George S. Vaughan
rec.humor.suicide.holiday, rec.humor.motos, rec.humor.religion.christian
are all good newgroup candidates.
George
--
George S. Vaughan 650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu -or- gvau...@hmcvax.bitnet
Evan Leibovitch
Which is, indeed, what they do.
Zev Sero
In article <32...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> dem...@iitmax.IIT.EDU (David Bombardier) writes:
It is not only Ayn Rand that regarded philosophy as a science. Many
philosophers have held this view, enough philosophers to make philosophy
an "established" science. Perhaps some of the philosophy students on the
net could provide a list of philosophers holding philosophy as a science.
It is not only Nostradamus who regarded astrology as a science. Many
astrologers have held this view, enough astrologers to make astrology
an "established" science. Perhaps some of the astrology students on
the net could provide a list of astrologers holding astrology as a
science.
--
Zev Sero - z...@bby.oz.au
Five is a good number, but not as an answer to the question 2*2 = ?
- Lambert Meertens
Joe Harris
I support Bob Stubblefield's charter for sci.philosophy.objectivism,
as well as his ideas for maintaining quality on such a newsgroup. In
my judgement, the "sci" hierarchy is the only place for a newsgroup
intended for serious discussions of Objectivism.
It appears that much of the discussion regarding the proper hierarchical
location of an Objectivism newsgroup centers on the question, "what disting-
uishing characteristics must a subject posses before it is to be considered
a science?" In other words, what is the definition of the word, "science"?
It has been asserted, in particular, that any organized body of knowledge
deserves to be called a "science". I disagree. That certainly is _a_
characteristic of a science, but it is not an _essential_ characteristic.
There are many organized bodies of knowledge which do not deserve to be called
sciences; the techniques used in fly casting, or in surfing, or in model
airplane building, come readily to my mind, and I am certain that we can
all think of others. What, then, are the characteristics of such subjects
as math, physics, chemistry, sociology, psychology, biology and, in my
judgement, philosophy, which set them apart from these non-scientific bodies
of knowledge?
All human knowledge derives from a process of induction and deduction.
One takes as a base perceptual data, then one abstracts from that data,
one reaches conceptual conclusions based on it, and one then applies those
conclusions in the proper context of knowledge. This is true particularly
in science, obviously, but I think that a primary distinction of science is
that it uses an explicitly defined _method_ for acquiring knowledge--i.e.,
an explicitly defined _epistemology_. This is what is usually called the
scientific method. Repeatability of experiments is not of the essence; this
simply makes induction easier. Falsifiability is certainly not of the
essence; once one acquires knowledge it is _certain_. What _is_ of the
essence is the explicit recognition of the inductive--deductive process as
the sole means of human knowledge, and the systematic application of this
process to the subject at hand.
This, however, is not sufficient; I suspect, for example, that many
model airplane builders are quite systematic in their means of acquiring
knowledge. Therefore, I propose a second distinguishing characteristic
of science: science works with and defines integrated systems of _principles_.
A principle is a broad conceptual conclusion. It consists, not of small,
concrete situations, but of high-level abstractions which integrate an
enormous amount of perceptual data. To say that science works with principles
identifies the broadness, the general applicability of science to the problems
of man.
Objectivism, in this sense, is in my judgement _not_ a science--it is a
particular system of principles. It is, however, the crowning achievement
_of_ a science--the science of philosophy. Philosophy is the science which
deals with the broadest principles, the widest abstractions with which man
works. It answers questions such as: What is the fundamental nature of
existence (metaphysics)? By what means does a human acquire knowledge of
existence (epistemology)? What is man? How ought a man act (ethics)?
What is the proper societal system (politics)? What is of metaphysical
importance (esthetics)?
It should be clear that philosophy has the distinguishing characteristics
which I have listed above. I readily admit that these may be incomplete;
however, if someone still claims that philosophy is not a science, I must
ask him to give the characteristics essential to the concept "science" which
I have missed, explain why they are essential, then show that philosophy
does not have them. Until and unless this happens, I consider the matter
closed.
One more point. It has been argued that philosophy is not an "estab-
lished" science, or a "generally accepted" science. I do not know what
these terms mean; however, I suspect that, were these arguments to be analysed,
their net content would be something along the lines of: philosophy is not
a science, because _we_ _say_ philosophy is not a science.
Strangely, I am unmoved by such arguments.
Philosophy _is_ a science--and anyone with a good knowledge of Objectivism
knows it.
Joe Harris
har...@portia.stanford.edu
Disclaimer: In the above article, I speak only for myself, not for Objectivism
or others who study and/or advocate it.
Robert Tracinski
>Discussion on issues of guns, politics, abortion, etc. are all
>grounded in issues of philosophy, principally ethics.
Yes, but an issue which is *grounded* in philosophy is not necessarily
philosophical. Glaring example: one can discuss sex from a philosophical
standpoint, grounding one's discussion in principles of ethics, but that does
not mean that a philosophy newsgroup belongs with alt.sex.
>My personal view of the hierarchies is as follows...
>elif (topic concerns things that can be measured, and experiments
> performed and REPLICATED)
> hierarchy is sci
Except that the sci hierarchy is loaded with non-experimental sciences. The
examples have been covered elsewhere, so I won't repeat them. The reason that
there are so many of these groups are in sci is that *not all sciences are
experimental*. The fundamental method of science is the discovery of laws and
causal principles based on observation of the facts of reality. Quantitative
measurement and experimentation are simply one set of means by which this is
done, but the non-experimental sciences in sci represent a large group of
sciences (including philosophy) which do not and cannot employ those means, but
are nonetheless experience-based and scientific. (I discussed this at length
in a posting which seems to have had trouble making it out on the net. Keep
watching for it.)
>elif (topic will generate extensive discussion, much of which is
> unlikely to convince or educate the majority of readers)
> hierarchy is talk
If you want to help raise the image of talk, you might start by giving it
a somewhat more inspiring description. As it is, this does not make talk
groups sound very useful. If they are unlikely to convince or educate most
readers, then why should they bother?
>If the proposed group is such a great idea, it should help raise the
>level and image of "talk" from the (mistaken) view that of some kind of
>ghetto for "useless" groups.
We are not altruists; we have no wish to sacrifice the image of the Objectivism
newsgroup in order to raise the image of the other talk newsgroups (an
objective which is probably impossible).
>Gene Spafford
Robert Tracinski
Torkel Franzen
>Philosophy should be an established science. In my opinion any
>philosophy should follow these guidelines:
>1. Its axioms must be based on applied sciences.
>2. All its theorems must be logically derived from its axioms.
>A philosophy that follows these guidelines is indistinguishable from
>established sciences.
I'm looking forward to reading in sci.philosophy.objectivism about the
way physics and chemistry - or should that be "a physics" and "a
chemistry"? - logically derive their theorems from their axioms. Hot
stuff!
As for the group to vote on, it might be a good idea to propose
"sci" first, since it seems much less likely to pass than "talk".
Those who hold out for "sci" would feel disinclined to vote for
"talk", but if "sci" fails, as seems likely, they will, I hope,
accept "talk".
Hans Huttel
>In article <18...@castle.ed.ac.uk>, ha...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) writes:
>>
>> Relegating a newsgroup devoted to a hilarious, pseudo-technical
>> philosophy to the talk or sci hierarchy is an injustice. There are
>> those who
>> disagree. This is not surprising, given the nature of their postings, whose
>> style belongs to the talk or not the rec.humor.* subhierarchy.
>
>Up until the above paragraph, the posting was cute. But I'd
>like this person to give a rational explanation of why he finds
>Objectivism hilarious. Otherwise, when listing rational persons,
>my motto would have to be, "Look, Ma, no Hans!".
But there is NO rational explanation ! Humour is in the eye of the
beholder. I am not one of these mature, rational persons who can
reduce everything to `Existence exists'. Certain people enjoy quoting
Ayn Rand, something that obviously gives them great pleasure. Once, in
a `discussion' in eunet.politics, Magnus Kempe (a famous Swedish
objectivist) quoted Ayn Rand as having said : "You cannot have your
cake and eat it too". But why is that better than me quoting Bob Dylan :
"You can have your cake and eat it too" (from "Lay Lady Lay",
Nashville Skyline) ????
So I STILL feel that the net needs a rec.humor.objectivism group. If
there is any interest, I might just post a proposal for a newsgroup
charter. At any rate, the rec.humor.* option MUST be included if/when
we reach the voting stage.
I apologize if any of you librarians/objectivists out there got
offended by my reference to objectivism as a `pseudo-technical
philosophy'. I simply meant `pseudo-philosophy'.
T. William Wells
: It appears that much of the discussion regarding the proper hierarchical
: location of an Objectivism newsgroup centers on the question, "what disting-
: uishing characteristics must a subject posses before it is to be considered
: a science?" In other words, what is the definition of the word, "science"?
: It has been asserted, in particular, that any organized body of knowledge
: deserves to be called a "science". I disagree.
Tough nougies. Read a dictionary and eliminate your ignorance.
Here, I'll spare you the effort. From Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary:
science n 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as
distingished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a
department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
<the ~ of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique)
that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
<have it down to a ~> c: one of the natural sciences 3 a:
knowledge covering general truths or the operation of
general laws esp. as obtained and tested through
scientific method b: such knowledge concerned with the
physical world and its phenomena : "natural science" 4: a
system or method reconciling practical ends with
scientific laws <culinary ~> 5 *cap*: "Christian Science"
It is your kind of manifest display of ignorance that gives
Objectivism a bad name.
: One more point. It has been argued that philosophy is not an "estab-
: lished" science, or a "generally accepted" science. I do not know what
: these terms mean;
Thank you for admitting your ignorance.
: however, I suspect that, were these arguments to be analysed,
: their net content would be something along the lines of: philosophy is not
: a science, because _we_ _say_ philosophy is not a science.
Horseshit. If you actually had read what was written instead of
inventing meanings that gratify your whims, you'd have seen the
argument. And you'd know that that is not what we've been saying.
The argument, in a nutshell because I'm getting tired of writing
for people who don't read, is this: the sci hierarchy is for
science, as in `science and technology'. It is not for science in
general.
: Strangely, I am unmoved by such arguments.
Not so strange. You can't be moved by what you evade.
: Philosophy _is_ a science--and anyone with a good knowledge of Objectivism
: knows it.
No duh. If you had been reading, instead of projecting your
prejudices, you'd know that we who are arguing against
sci.philosophy.tech are not debating that point. The point we are
debating is whether the kind of science that philosophy, and
Objectivism, is is the kind of science that belongs there.
Robert Tracinski
objectivism" does not seem to have made it out to all but a few lonely spots
on the net. Thus, I am reposting it. If this bothers anyone who is getting
it for the nth time, or if there is a better way to repost it, then contact me
via e-mail.
-Robert Tracinski
Message Follows-----
The relevant facts of this case are: the nature of science, the nature of
philosophy, the nature of Objectivism, and the nature of the sci.* hierarchy.
I will take these in order.
1) The nature of science.
Let's start with a definition. From the Random house dictionary:
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts
or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation
of general laws"
Sir Karl Popper to the contrary notwithstanding, this is an accurate
definition. It conveys the essential activity of scientific endeavor--the
systematic study of the facts of reality resulting in the discovery of
fundamental laws which explain and integrate those facts. How this is done is
a discussion whose details belong on sci.philosophy.tech. In general, however,
the method of science is to gather facts, discover underlying causes and
general laws, then confirm those general laws by checking them against the
facts.
In some sciences, this is a process which involves a formalized method of
gaining facts and testing laws which is called experimentation. Not all
sciences involve experimentation in this sense, as in the case of economics and
psychology. Some sciences deal exculsively with physical nature, and this is
the second definition which the Random House dictionary gives: "systematic
knowledge of the physical or material world". However, there are other
sciences which deal with facts which are not strictly material, with economics
and psychology again as examples. The fact that science often involves
mathematical language is non-essential; mathematics is one form of expressing
general laws, and it is the form appropriate for many kinds of sciences, such
as physics. However, it is completely inappropriate for the laws of other
sciences, e.g. economics and psychology. (The fact that many of the people who
work in these fields do attempt to use mathematics is evidence only of the
damage which an improper philosophy of science has done.)
In summary, we can isolate three properties which characterize scientific
endeavor. These are not the only properties of science, but they are its most
fundamental properties.
a) basis in facts
b) systematization
c) discovery of general laws and principles
2) The nature of philosophy.
It should be clear from the discussion above that philosophy, at least if it is
done properly, has the same essential *method* as the other sciences: it is
based in the facts, it is systematic, and it aims at the discovery of general
laws and principles. (It may be noted that even those philosophies which claim
to reject these methods still feel the need to pay deference to them and in
some sense conform to them, as in the case of Nietzsche, who developed a
coherent philosophical system despite his stated intentions to the contrary.)
There are many other similarities as well. Hence, if philosophy is to be
excluded from science, then it must be differentiated from the sciences by its
*content*. But this is not possible. It is true that many of the sciences
deal solely with the nature of physical and material reality. So, in fact,
does philosophy, although only in an extremely general way. There are also
other sciences which deal with things other than strictly physical and material
reality. Psychology deals with the nature of the mind, and economics deals
with human values and action in an economic context. These examples are chosen
deliberately, because philosophy also deals with the same subject matter, only
from a broader perspective; epistemology studies the nature of the mind, and
ethics and politics study the nature of human values and action (aesthetics
studies both, but in a specific context). In fact, if there is one criterion
which serves best to distinguish the contents of the sciences from other fields
of knowledge, it is the breadth of scope and fundamentality of their contents.
Philosophy, as the broadest and most fundamental of the sciences certainly
qualifies. Thus, philosophy is fundamentally similar, both in its essential
method and in the nature of its content, to every other science, and must be
included as a science.
At this point we can conclude that the classification of philosophy as a
science is justified.
3) The nature of Objectivism.
It need only be observed that Objectivism is a specific school of thought
within the field of philosophy. Thus, sci.philosophy.objectivism, as a
hierarchical classification, is justified. Furthermore, it can be noted,
Objectivism is far more consistently scientific (according to the criteria
given above) in its approach than any other philosophy.
4) The nature of the sci.* hierarchy.
We must also take into account whether the nature of the sci.* hierarchy is
such that it is meant to include only the physical sciences, rather than the
human sciences.
As noted in earlier messages, Gene Spafford's description includes only two
criteria:
a) serious, technical discussion of
b) the "established sciences"
Serious technical discussion is the purpose of the proposed newsgroup, so the
first criterion is met.
As to whether or not it is an "established" science: established by whom? The
notion that philosophy is fundamentally different from the other sciences is a
relatively recent notion, put forward by 20th century philosophers (I will let
you guess their motives for yourself) and based on very recent views in the
philosophy of science (e.g. Karl Popper). If we look at previous philosophers,
we find ample evidence that they "established" philosophy as a science.
(Aristotle, DesCartes, Kant and Mill are only the ones for whom I could recall
specific references off the top of my head, but many others have also been
mentioned. If pressed, I can dig into my library and produce references on
them as well.) According to this criterion, philosophy is certainly an
established science. And, as evidence that the sci.* hierarchy is not
limited strictly to the social sciences, there are sci.econ, etc.
Thus, the Objectivism newgroup belongs in the sci.* hierarchy.
On this basis, I support sci.philosophy.objectivism.
-Robert Tracinski
rw...@tank.uchicago.edu
In case anyone cares, I'm majoring in philosophy here at the U of C, so I do
know something about the subject...
--
Robert Tracinski | "Throughout the centuries, there were men who took
<rw...@tank.uchicago.edu> | first steps down new roads armed with nothing but
Student of Philosophy | their own vision."
University of Chicago | --Ayn Rand, _The_Fountainhead_
Torkel Franzen
>One more point. It has been argued that philosophy is not an "estab-
>lished" science, or a "generally accepted" science. I do not know what
>these terms mean; however, I suspect that, were these arguments to
>be analysed, their net content would be something along the lines of:
>philosophy is not a science, because _we_ _say_ philosophy is not a science.
There isn't really any argument involved here, just a simple observation:
when people speak about "science" in ordinary contexts, academic or
otherwise, they don't include philosophy. Otherwise, indeed, there would
be no reason for objectivists (of the "sci" persuasion) to go on and on
about this. However, I see no reason to discuss in this context how
philosophy differs from science, since it appears (from objectivist
postings) that their view of the nature of the established sciences
is, to say the least, inadequate. So why not sci.philosophy.objectivism?
People will learn quickly enough that "sci" in this particular context
means "this is science as objectivists understand it".
David Joslin
>In article <51...@bbn.COM> djo...@plato.bbn.com (David Joslin) writes:
>>In article <32...@iitmax.IIT.EDU> (David Bombardier) writes:
>>> Placing the newsgroup in the talk hierarchy would be akin to a
>>>university dismantling its philosophy department and creating a student
>>>organization to replace it.
>>
>>Perhaps it would be more akin to giving philosophy students
>>BA degrees instead of BS degrees.
>
>Which is, indeed, what they do.
Now you've gone and spoiled the whole thing. I had hoped that
the proponents of sci.phil.obj would have read my statement, and
decided that it was, indeed, a good analogy. But then the next
morning while eating their corn flakes they would have hit their
foreheads and said "Wait! There's no BS degree in philosophy!"
And then they might have been enlightened as to their error. Or
maybe not. Perhaps they would have assumed that they were still
right and hundreds of universities around the world were being
irrational and failing to see the true nature of philosophy.
Somehow it wouldn't surprise me.
:-)
David
Hans Huttel
har...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) ]
I continue to support my own ideas for a rec.humor.objectivism,
as well as my ideas for maintaining quality on such a newsgroup. In
my judgement, the "rec.humor.*" subhierarchy is the only place for a newsgroup
intended for ANY discussions of Objectivism.
It appears that much of the discussion regarding the proper hierarchical
location of an Objectivism newsgroup centers on the question, "what disting-
uishing characteristics must a subject posses before it is to be considered
funny?" In other words, what is the definition of the word, "humour"?
It has been asserted, in particular, that any organized body of knowledge
deserves to be called "humour". I disagree. That certainly is _a_
characteristic of humour, but it is not an _essential_ characteristic.
There are many organized bodies of knowledge which do not deserve to be called
humour; alt.flame or the postings of Joachim Martillo in various groups vaguely
related to Islam (or any other religion, for that matter) come readily to my
mind, and I am certain that we can all think of others. What, then, are the
characteristics of e.g. Monty Python, stand-up comedians, jokes, satire, and,
in my judgement, Objectivism, which set them apart from these non-humourous
bodies of knowledge?
All humour derives from a process of irrationality.
One takes as a base a strange reinterpretation of perceptual data, then one
abstracts from reality and reaches funny conclusions based on it, and one then
dumps these conclusions into some real-world context. This is true
particularly in satire, obviously, but I think that a primary distinction of
satire is that it uses an explicitly defined _method_ for acquiring the quality
of being funny --i.e., an explicitly defined _sense_of_humour_. This is what
usually guarantees a good laugh. In objectivism, this is not necessary,
though. The repeatability of Ayn Rand quotations is, however, of the essence;
this makes the task easier.
Another principle in objectivist humour is that of a broad
conclusion. It consists, not of anything that can be applied in concrete
situations, but of high-level `abstractions' which use an enormous amount of
verbiage. To say that objectivist humour pretends to be based on principles
identifies the general applicability of the objectivist sense of humour.
Objectivism, in this sense, is in my judgement _not_ just humour --it is a
particular spoof of the concept of the notion of a `system of principles'. It
is, however, the crowning achievement _of_ humour --the subconscious sense of
humour employed by objectivists is amazing.
It should be clear that humour has the distinguishing characteristics
which I have listed above. I readily admit that these may be incomplete;
however, if someone still claims that objectivism is not humour, I must
ask him/her to give the characteristics essential to the concept "humour" which
I have missed, explain why they are essential, then show that objectivism
doesn't make him/her laugh. Until and unless this happens, I consider the matter
closed and will continue to claim that the only proper name for the
objectivist newsgroup is rec.humor.objectivism.
Objectivism _is_ funny --and anyone with a good knowledge of Objectivist
postings to the net knows it.
T. William Wells
: > Relegating a newsgroup devoted to a hilarious, pseudo-technical
: > philosophy to the talk or sci hierarchy is an injustice. There are those who
: > disagree. This is not surprising, given the nature of their postings, whose
: > style belongs to the talk or not the rec.humor.* subhierarchy.
:
: Up until the above paragraph, the posting was cute. But I'd
: like this person to give a rational explanation of why he finds
: Objectivism hilarious. Otherwise, when listing rational persons,
: my motto would have to be, "Look, Ma, no Hans!".
:
: Jeff Daiell
Hey Jeff, lighten up!
(Coming from me? Wow!)
Seriously, I don't imagine that Hans Huttel is much of a fan of
Objectivism, but his posting, including that last paragraph, was a
parody of a posting by someone else in this newsgroup. Remembering
the posting it was a parody of, I got a good chuckle from 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_
Jeffery Small
Philosophy n.;
1. Literally, the love of wisdom; in actual usage, the science which
investigates the facts and principles of reality and of human nature
and conduct; specif., and now usually, the science which comprises
logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and the theory of knowledge
[i.e. epistemology].
Science n.;
4. A branch of study concerned with observation and classification
of facts, esp. with the establishment of verifiable general laws,
chiefly by induction and hypotheses; as, mathematical science.
5. Specif., accumulated knowledge systematized and formulated with
reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of
general laws.
Fact n.;
2. That which has actual existence; an event.
3. The quality of being actual; ...
Induction n.;
2. An inducing; specif.: a) A bringing forward of facts to prove something.
6. Logic. Act or process of reasoning from a part to a whole, from
particulars to generals, or from the individual to the universal; the
inference so reached.
Logic n.;
1. The science that deals with the cannons and criteria of validity in
thought and demonstration; the science of the formal principles of
reasoning.
4. Connection, as of facts or events, in a rational way; ...
Rational adj.;
1. Having reason or understanding; reasoning.
3. Agreeable to reason; intelligent; sensible.
Definitions above from: "Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" - 1961
Clearly, unless one wishes to rewrite the definitions and thereby distort
the meaning of any of the above terms, philosophy (as defined; often in
opposition to how it is practiced) is and must be considered a science.
In <94...@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, Gene Spafford wrote:
> ... The fact that some of the posters to those groups in the talk
> hierarchy yell rather than debate is a reflection on their immaturity
> rather than the nature of the topic.
And _this_ directly addresses the issue at hand. There was an initial
proposal put forward to discuss the merits of creating a new newsgroup
for the discussion of a philosophy (specifically, Objectivism). What we
have had in response is a protracted debate, not over whether the group
should be created, but instead on where the group should be placed in
the USENET news hierarchy.
One group of individuals has argued that the new newsgroup should be
created under the "sci." branch. Their position is that Objectivism
is a philosophy; philosophy is a science; science-related groups should
be placed under the "sci." hierarchy. If you accept that Objectivism is
a philosophy, then this line of thought is clearly supported by the
definitions listed above.
Another group of individuals has argued a number of points which
fundamentally boil down to a realization that the topic of Objectivism,
when discussed in the USENET forum, yields: [quoting Gene from same article]
> ... extensive discussion, much of which is unlikely to convince
> or educate the majority of readers
And this group has only to point at this thread for plenty of factual
data to back up this position. Within this group, there appears to be
a strong motivation to, in general, relegate these types of discussions
to the "waste-bin" of talk. where they can be conveniently ignored.
This is a desire I can certainly understand.
So, how does one decide between these two positions? Does this new group
belong under sci. or under talk.?
Gene defined the sci. and talk. hierarchies by:
> ...
> elif (topic concerns things that can be measured, and experiments
> performed and REPLICATED)
> hierarchy is sci
> elif (topic will generate extensive discussion, much of which is
> unlikely to convince or educate the majority of readers)
> hierarchy is talk
> ...
And then concludes:
> Applying this clearly puts philosophy groups in talk.
Here, I am going to have to take exception with Gene's conclusion. The
emphasis on the word REPLICATED in the definition of the sci. hierarchy
coupled with his conclusion imply that philosophy (as a discipline) deals
with issues outside the realm of the scientific method. There is no
evidence offered to backup this implication and I suggest that this
conclusion is contrary to the history of the field of philosophy - from
which, the definitions above were derived.
I would instead turn the tables and say that philosophy, because it is
a science, deals with just those things which are "verifiable", and that
which cannot be verified, by its nature places itself outside the realm
of philosophy. Clearly, when one reviews the field of "philosophy", there
is a great deal presented under its mantle which is non- or anti-scientific.
However, to paraphrase Gene, I would suggest that this is a reflection on
the immaturity of the profession and its professionals rather than on the
nature of philosophy itself.
I believe that the decision concerning where to place a new philosophy
newsgroup is more important than it might first appear. On the one hand,
I can appreciate the desire to control the growth of USENET through the
application of some parameters and policies. But in this specific case,
there has already been considerable discussion (from both Objectivist
supporters & detractors) stating the non-scientific nature of philosophy.
If philosophy is relegated to talk. (for whatever reasons), then, by
its banishment from sci., it carries, if not the banner then the stigma
of the "non-scientific".
Regardless of the specific views presented by any given "philosophy",
and regardless of how some (or many or all) individuals on the net have
approached this topic, philosophy is a science and needs to be pursued
with the same exacting care and rigorous precision expected in any
other science. Certainly, in a forum like USENET, there is no way to
impose or enforce such discipline; that is something that each individual
must demand of themselves. However, by placing philosophy under the sci.
hierarchy, we at least set an expectation for how the subject is to be
treated. I suggest that the (possible) increase in the "noise" which
may result under the sci. heading is a small price to pay in exchange
for preventing the misrepresentation of an entire branch of knowledge.
To each person who agrees that philosophy needs to be treated as a
science and sees that there is an essential principle at stake in the
outcome of this issue, I would ask that you post a follow-up message
making your views known and in that way, play an important role in
directing the course of these events.
--
Jeff Small C. Jeffery Small & Associates (206) 485-5596
uunet!nwnexus!cjsa!jeff 19112 152nd Avenue NE, Woodinville, WA 98072
Robert Tracinski
sci vs. talk for *.philosophy.objectivism to a close.
Those of us who have been arguing for sci.philosophy.objectivism have given a
lengthy, detailed and cogent defense of our position. We have demonstrated
that:
1) Philosophy is a science.
2) This accords with the intention and current usage of the sci.*
hierarchy.
3) Thus, the newsgroup should be sci.philosophy.objectivism.
The response has been almost exclusively from those who get a power trip out of
flaming people, or who derive some juvenile pleasure from using dirty words in
public, or who apparently have nothing better to do than spend all day making
snide comments. I will not dignify these people with a public response because
they have contributed no actual content to the discussion. (There have been a
few rare exceptions, but their arguments have not been very extensive, e.g.
Gene Spafford.)
The discussion is so intellectually one-sided that it is completely un-
productive. We have made convincing arguments and have received no substantive
intellectual opposition. It is time to close this case and move on the next
issue, namely the SPO charter.
The most fruitful area of discussion to start on is the issue of how to
maintain the quality of discussion on the newsgroup without a moderator. Bob
Stubblefield has made some very good comments on this subject, and I will
continue on this subject in future messages.
--
Robert Tracinski | The Big Question:
<rw...@tank.uchicago.edu> | Is there intelligent life on USENET,
University of Chicago | and why doesn't it post on news.groups?
Kenneth Almquist
> Several individuals have stated that those of us who support placing the
> proposed Objectivist newsgroup in the sci hierarchy have not justified our
> position. In fact, there have been lengthy justifications posted in the
> last few weeks.
>
> for placing the newsgroup in the sci hierarchy. It has been ignored.
OK, I'll respond to Bob. (The other articles that David mentions have
expired here.) Bob wrote:
Sci--because of the approach I intend to use and would like to
see others use in such discussions. What is scientific about it
is that conclusions should be drawn from observations of reality.
Astrology is based upon observations, but it is not a science. What
distinguishes natural philosophy (science) is that it has generally
accepted methods for going from observations to theories. One can be
confident that the flap over cold fusion will eventually be resolved
one way or the other based upon the facts as they develop.
But in most areas of philosophy there are no such accepted methods.
Let me take an example relevant to Objectivism, since that is what we
are discussing. One of Ayn Rand's books is titled _For the New
Intellectual_. Based upon my observations of this text, I conclude
that Rand makes assertions without regard to the evidence, that her
conclusions rarely follow from her premises, and that, in short, the
book is mostly nonsense. It is safe to assume that some and probably
all Objectivists, observing the same text, reach vastly different
conclusions about it. Could they be right? Of course. If we accept
the following proposition:
Kenneth Almquist is irrational. (Proposition 1)
then Rand, rather than being irrational, might merely *appear*
irrational to me, because *I'm* irrational.
But in fact I refuse to accept proposition 1. I do not reject propo-
sition 1 based upon arguments or observations. for if proposition 1
were true I would not be able to evaluate arguments or judge the
significance of observations anyway. Therefore it is unlikely that
any amount of discussion will change my mind on this point, and I have
no reason to believe that Objectivists are any less stubborn. This is
an unresolvable difference, which makes discussion of the it appropriate
for a talk group.
Objectivists may flame me for misrepresenting Rand in the two preceding
paragraphs. I probably won't bother to reply here because I could
probably type in the entire contents of _For the New Intellectual_
word for word without changing their opinions. Most objectivists have
already read it, so there is no conceivable evidence that I could
present which would persuade them of my position. Similarly, since
I've suffered through every page of _For the New Intellectual_, there
is no conceivable evidence which Objectivists would persuade me of
their opinion. Since evidence has no persuasive power, this is another
unresolvable difference which is appropriately discussed in "talk".
Perhaps proponents of sci.philosophy.objectivism hope to keep people
whom they view as irrational out of the proposed newsgroup. But as Gene
Ward Smith pointed out in <1990Jan26....@agate.berkeley.edu>, a
standard USENET group would allow postings by people who oppose Objec-
tivism as well as those who support it. Objectivists can reasonably
request that disagreement with Objectivism be presented in a civil
manner. They cannot reasonably expect opponents of Objectivism to abide
by some Objectivist standard of rational discussion, since opponents of
Objectivism are likely to reject any such standard. Differences between
Objectivists and non-Objectivists will be discussed in any Objectivism
group, and since these differences are unresolvable, these discussions
do not belong in a "sci" group.
Kenneth Almquist
greg Nowak
>Those of us who have been arguing for sci.philosophy.objectivism have given a
>lengthy, detailed and cogent defense of our position. We have demonstrated
>that:
> 1) Philosophy is a science.
> 2) This accords with the intention and current usage of the sci.*
> hierarchy.
> 3) Thus, the newsgroup should be sci.philosophy.objectivism.
"Demonstrating to your own satisfaction" is not the same thing as "proving".
>The response has been almost exclusively from those who get a power trip out of
>flaming people, or who derive some juvenile pleasure from using dirty words in
>public, or who apparently have nothing better to do than spend all day making
>snide comments.
Can you _prove_ these accusations? After all, you _do_ claim to be an
Objectivist. I thought you weren't given to merely asserting what
you're supposed to prove.
>The discussion is so intellectually one-sided that it is completely un-
>productive.
Can you _prove_ this?
> We have made convincing arguments and have received no substantive
>intellectual opposition.
This is a statement of _opinion_, correct?
>It is time to close this case and move on the next
>issue, namely the SPO charter.
I have an alternative suggestion. Most of the problem in this
discussion seems to revolve around the fact that there is no
established procedure for resolving protracted naming difficulties. On
the other hand, there is no reason why the votes could not go on
simultaneously: both TPO and SPO have been proposed and have
vote-collectors. While some have indicated dissatisfaction with T.W.
Wells' informal poll on the subject, they should be mollified by letting the actual votes serve as the poll. Thus:
1) Hold the TPO and SPO votes simultaneously (same starting date)
2) If only one group meets the creation criteria, that is the one that
gets created.
3) If both groups meet the creation criteria, then the one with the
most yes votes gets created.
Surely this is democratic enough that even Objectivists cannot Object.
Comments?
>--
>Robert Tracinski | The Big Question:
><rw...@tank.uchicago.edu> | Is there intelligent life on USENET,
>University of Chicago | and why doesn't it post on news.groups?
This is _your_ sig for news.groups? Enlightening.
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
Karen Valentino
Spafford):
>>My personal view of the hierarchies is as follows...
>>elif (topic concerns things that can be measured, and experiments
>> performed and REPLICATED)
>> hierarchy is sci
>Except that the sci hierarchy is loaded with non-experimental sciences. The
>examples have been covered elsewhere, so I won't repeat them. The reason that
>there are so many of these groups are in sci is that *not all sciences are
>experimental*. The fundamental method of science is the discovery of laws and
>causal principles based on observation of the facts of reality. Quantitative
>measurement and experimentation are simply one set of means by which this is
>done, but the non-experimental sciences in sci represent a large group of
>sciences (including philosophy) which do not and cannot employ those means, but
>are nonetheless experience-based and scientific.
I have to agree with Robert. Not all science is based on replicable
experiments. Much of it is based on observation.
Maybe some definitions are in order. From Webster's:
science: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from
ignorance or misunderstanding. 2: a: a department of systematized
knowledge as an object of study. b: something that may be learned
like systematized knowledge. c: one of the natural sciences. 3: a:
knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws
esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method. b: such
knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural
science. 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with
scientific laws.
Wow! Lots of things are science! In it's definitions of science,
Webster's mentions theology as science, sport as science, and culinary
science! Cooking!! Do I want these things under sci.? No. Are they
sciences? Yes. And yes, indeed, astrology is a science.
The problem is not whether philosophy is science; the problem is the
Usenet definition (or is it Spaf's?) of science. Philosophy IS A
SCIENCE that seems to be excluded from the sci hierarchy by Usenet's
definition of sci. It would be helpful if everyone discussing this
topic would keep this distinction in mind. There is no reason why the
people who want to keep *.p.o. out of sci can't acknowledge that
philosophy is a science, and there is no reason why advocates of sci.p.o.
should assume that because philosophy is a science that it should, as
a matter of course, be assigned to the sci hierarchy.
There is a lot of disagreement about whether "science" = the hard
sciences, like physics and chemistry, or a more general definition,
such as Robert's above. I sort of like the idea of making a distinction
between natural sciences and other sciences, such as social sciences.
They are different in that hard sciences are less subjective in nature.
The more subjective sciences rely more on observation and less on
experimentation.
Another part of the problem is that, if sciences are to be assigned
to newsgroups following the narrow Usenet (or Spaf) definition of
science, then sciences other than natural sciences really have nowhere
to go. So they are unceremoniously dumped into other inappropriate
domains. Such as talk. I feel indignant about this wonderful special
treatment that the hard sciences get! They get their own hierarchy,
and other branches get shat upon. I'd like to see the Other Sciences
have their own wonderful place to hang out in.
In case you haven't already guessed it, this is another article
Criticizing the Hierarchical System and Calling for Something to be
Done about It.
Science isn't talk.
>>elif (topic will generate extensive discussion, much of which is
>> unlikely to convince or educate the majority of readers)
>> hierarchy is talk
And here, Spaf makes my case for me. I'd have to be pretty pessimistic
to think that my elucidations would be "unlikely to convince or educate
the majority of readers." I'm wondering, do you (Spaf) think that
discussions in sciences other than sciences which use replicable
experimentation are "unlikely to educate?" If you think that subjects
such as anthropology or clinical psych have a prayer of educating people,
then I hope you will consider giving some thought to solutions other
than the current Dumping Mechanism.
>If you want to help raise the image of talk, you might start by giving it
>a somewhat more inspiring description. As it is, this does not make talk
>groups sound very useful. If they are unlikely to convince or educate most
>readers, then why should they bother?
What's needed is not to raise the image of talk; what's needed is a
top level domain parallel to sci, for groups with topics that are sciences
but not natural or hard sciences.
Anybody have an idea for a domain name?
--
Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA
ka...@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen
"The best way out is always through." Robert Frost
David Bombardier
I have come to the same conclusion as Robert. The only change that has
occurred in the sci vs. talk discussion since it began is that, in general,
the proponents of talk have descended deeper into the depths of hostility and
vulgarity. And, contrary to what some may think, the method of arguing
_is_ indicative of the content. The talk proponets continue to hurl
invectives as their main method of argumentation, and scorn we sci proponents
for failing to fully prove our points, as if we had to footnote each
sentence with a philosophic treatise, a delimitation of context, and an
answer to any possible objections, while all they have to do is scream like
children that we have not done so.
The sci vs. talk discussion is over (if it ever began), except the results of
a certain sci vs. talk poll, a poll I consider meaningless given the nature of
the creature who is conducting it, have not been posted. (Needless to say,
given the nature of this creature, my pro-sci vote has just been declared null
and void.)
Let's move on to discussing the issue of the SPO charter. This discussion
will be more rational and civilized as it will appear on my terminal,
because I have recently made a number of additions to my kill file.
-- David Bombardier
dem...@iitmax.iit.edu
Torkel Franzen
>1) Hold the TPO and SPO votes simultaneously (same starting date)
I think this is a poor idea to split the vote this way, since it is by
no means certain that either alternative will pass unsupported by the
adherents of the other alternative. The primary objective is to set up an
objectivist newsgroup. Therefore, I submit, the best plan is to maximize
the probability that the group will be established by voting on the
"sci" alternative first.
Jeff Dalton
>In article <1990Jan27....@twwells.com>
>bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>>A number of people have argued for sci on the basis that
>>discussions would be technical or that Objectivism is a science.
>
>No, people have argued that *philosophy* is a science and that Objectivism
>is a philosophy. Which leads me to,
That's not true. People *have* argued that discussions would be
technical and that Objectivism is a science. Of course, maany of
the arguments aimed to show that philosophy was a science; but not
all of them.
For example:
In article <6...@arkham.enet.dec.com>, may@28182 (Patrick May) writes:
Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the appropriate name/place for the
proposed newsgroup because Objectivism is based on the scientific
method.
In article <55...@hplabsb.HP.COM>, stata@hplabsb (Raymie Stata) writes:
If the group is restricted to technical discussions of technical issues
in philosophy, then it would belong in the "sci." hierarchy.
In article <900118230...@apee.ogi.edu>, mehuld@APEE (Mehul Dave) writes:
Care to explain why an Objectivism discussion group would not be
technical in nature?
In article <83...@portia.Stanford.EDU> har...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes:
As far as I can tell, neither sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta
is inappropriate for Objectivist postings. All the postings to
sci.philosophy. tech by Objectivists have been technical, scientific
expositions, from my postings on the sciences of mathematics and physics
to other postings on the science of ethics. I have never understood why
technical discussions of Objectivism are less appropriate in
sci.philosophy.tech than those of other philosophies.
In <72...@tank.uchicago.edu> ga...@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Garmong) writes:
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?
--
Jeff Dalton
>I said that relegating a newsgroup devoted to a serious, technical philosophy
>to the talk hierarchy was an injustice. I did not realize how much of an
>injustice this would be until I took a look at what newsgroups are in the talk
>hierarchy.
A group is placed in the part of the hierarchy that includes it's
subject matter. If it's not included by "sci", it doesn't matter
how worthy it is: it belongs somewhere else. Talk includes almost
anything, so almost anything can go in talk. Sci does not include
almost anything, so it's harder to get in.
Peter da Silva
> Definitions above from: "Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" - 1961
bi...@twwells.com (T. William Wells):
> Here, I'll spare you the effort. From Webster's Ninth New
> Collegiate Dictionary:
All of which proves yet again that Dictionaries are not to be considered
the final arbiter in anything but games of Scrabble (tm).
--
_--_|\ 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?" `-_-'
Karl Lehenbauer
Do you think a sci group will somehow give more legitimacy to your objectivism
discussion/flames than a talk group would?
Ayn would have found that to be contemptible, I think. Just get your forum
as painlessly as possible -- I suspect you'll have a hard go getting an SPO
vote passed. What do you care what others think, anyway? That's for
second-handers, 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
greg Nowak
This is a consideration that adherents of either alternative will have
to make. The major advantage is that no one is constrained to vote yes
to only one alternative! (I should have made that clearer in my first
post.) SPO being a good idea does not make TPO a bad idea, and vice
versa. Those who want an objectivist newsgroup at all costs can vote
yes for both; those who are talk or sci proponents can vote yes to one
and no to the other, or abstain from the other as they choose.
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
Michael Gordon Shapiro
Christopher John Rapier
read Rene Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy". Great work
that attempts to provide a base for reality without presuposing the
existance of reality. Excellent philosophizing.
basically he starts by saying that if he is pondering the nature of his
own existance then he must exist to be able to do that. All things are
taken from there. I don't think you Objectivists will be able to enjoy
it though, it doesn't support an immutable reality.
christos
Christopher John Rapier
christos "Silly fascist kids are for tricks"
Jay you ignorant splut! Maynard
>Another group of individuals has argued a number of points which
>fundamentally boil down to a realization that the topic of Objectivism,
>when discussed in the USENET forum, yields: [quoting Gene from same article]
> > ... extensive discussion, much of which is unlikely to convince
> > or educate the majority of readers
>And this group has only to point at this thread for plenty of factual
>data to back up this position. Within this group, there appears to be
>a strong motivation to, in general, relegate these types of discussions
>to the "waste-bin" of talk. where they can be conveniently ignored.
>This is a desire I can certainly understand.
Exactly.
Until this discussion started, I would have considered, and probably
voted for, putting the group in sci. After reading gigabytes of
"extensive discussion, much of which is unlikely to convince or educate
the majority of readers" about just what is philosophy, and whether or
not objectivism is one, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that
the group properly belongs in talk.
--
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 +----------------------------------------
Free the DC-10!
Miron Cuperman
>In article <13...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) writes:
>
> >1) Hold the TPO and SPO votes simultaneously (same starting date)
>
> I think this is a poor idea to split the vote this way, since it is by
>no means certain that either alternative will pass unsupported by the
>adherents of the other alternative.
It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote
on one proposal independently from the other. So a person can vote
Yes to both, or No to both, or a combination thereof.
Miron Cuperman <mi...@cs.sfu.ca>
Torkel Franzen
>It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote
>on one proposal independently from the other. So a person can vote
>Yes to both, or No to both, or a combination thereof.
Yes, I didn't think of this. Still, I think we shouldn't have
simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply
refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk".
Those of us who want an objectivism group first and foremost would
prefer not to put the "sci" diehards in this difficult position.
T. William Wells
: [A discussion about philosophy that is more amusing than enlightening.]
I don't mean the above as a flame but rather as an observation.
The things that are most apparent are that neither you nor Mr.
Bombardier are talking so that the other has a chance of
understanding and neither of you, apparently, understand that.
This is as much Mr. Bombardier's failure as yours.
Robert Tracinski
sillier, to the point where people are arguing that it should be talk on the
basis of volume alone (??!). I guarantee that the volume of SPO won't exceed
that of several sci groups (SPT, for example). If it does, I'd be more than
happy, but we probably won't generate that kind of volume.
As to the number of flames (as well as the volume), please remember that this
is just the discussion on news.groups. Hopefully, once the group is set up,
there will be fewer people who just drop in for the sole purpose of insulting
Objectivists. Most of the discussion will be by people who are actually
interested in Objectivism and have something intelligent to say, rather than
those who happened to be reading news.groups and decided to use this
discussion as an excuse for a flame (which group makes up a considerable
portion of the volume of this discussion). That is one reason (though by no
means the main reason) that the sci group will be better; that sort of thing
is less common on sci than on talk.
Just to put some meat into this assertion, and also to start some discussion of
the charter, I'll give a list of guidelines which should help to keep the
overall quality of discussion on SPO high. Something like this should be
included in the charter for SPO.
1) Never respond publicly to an obnoxious posting. Why? It only gives the
obnoxious poster an excuse to respond with more junk, as well as wasting
readers' time on a non-issue. Feel free to send private flames and/or add the
person to your kill file. If there is some content to the posting which you
wish to address, do so, but do not mention the obnoxious poster directly. Any-
one worth his salt should be able to recognize an obnoxious posting for what it
is--they don't need your help.
2) If a person who has shown himself to be irrational happens to write a non-
inflammatory posting, do not respond to him directly. Why? If you get
involved in a discussion with this person, then it is only a matter of time
before he will revert to his old ways and flame you. Trust me, I've seen this
before. There are some people who cannot discuss *any* issue for very long
without flaming.
3) To help with (1) and (2), either develop epic self-restraint or use a kill
file Believe me, it will make your life easier.
4) Never post unless you have a point that is worth making. This is the
general principle that subsumes all others--the newsgroup axiom, if you will.
Don't respond just to say that you agree with someone (unless there is a point
to it, as on news.groups) or to give an old argument over again (unless you
have some new twist to add). Unless the posting contributes something
substantial and new, don't waste your effort (or anybody else's).
That and some style guidelines (Bob Stubblefield has some excellent ones) with
a note about brevity should make for higher quality, if they are followed (I
know that a fair number of the future posters on SPO will follow them, myself
included). The rational posters will not waste space on the irrational, and
the irrational will (hopefully) get discouraged and shut up.
The above guidelines need to be formalized, and perhaps added to. Does anyone
have any further comments on this issue?
-Robert
--
Robert Tracinski | "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is
<rw...@tank.uchicago.edu> | a contradiction in terms: before it could
Student of Philosophy | identify itself as consciousness, it had to be
University of Chicago | conscious of something."-Ayn Rand,_Atlas_Shrugged_
Gene W. Smith
>As noted in earlier messages, Gene Spafford's description includes only two
>criteria:
> a) serious, technical discussion of
> b) the "established sciences"
>Serious technical discussion is the purpose of the proposed newsgroup, so the
>first criterion is met.
It is met only if serious, technical discussion is what
actually happens, not if it is what it is proposed will happen.
>As to whether or not it is an "established" science: established
>by whom? The notion that philosophy is fundamentally different
>from the other sciences is a relatively recent notion, put
>forward by 20th century philosophers (I will let you guess their
>motives for yourself) and based on very recent views in the
>philosophy of science (e.g. Karl Popper).
Modern philosophers are only following ordinary usage here.
One difficulty we are having in this discussion is that usage
*has* changed. To understand the guidelines, we need to
understand what the gurus of the great renaming (who are still
around, incidently) meant by them.
I spent some time arguing against the creation of a "talk"
hierarchy and the placing of philosophy there in part because I
thought the kind of problem we face now would be inevitable.
But "talk" has been created, as well as "sci", and it
is clear enough from the guidelines where the proposed
Objectivism group falls. There is a certain component of
"science" as that word is generally understood these
days (forget Descartes and Aristotle, *please*!) in
philosophy, but in general the consensus judgement has
been to place it with the humanities, and not the
sciences.
Is Chicago still full of neo-Aristotelians these days? Must be
fun for an Objectivist.
--
'Still, if you were at Brahms and the room flashed as another idea was
captured from the ebb and flow of that vast sea of cosmic intelligence,
the idea might be considered to have been "created"' -- Paul M. Koloc
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Evan Leibovitch
> It should be clear that philosophy has the distinguishing characteristics
>which I have listed above. I readily admit that these may be incomplete;
Yes, there are many elements of philosophy which can considered scientific.
But you are correct in that it is incomplete.
Science is indeed one of, but not the only, approach to philosophy in
existence. Certain elements of philosophy (determining the existstence/
non-existence of God, the nature of man, the source and definition of
human spirit) attempt to put scientific principles to what are often
anti-scientific concepts.
Over the thousands of years that human philosophy has existed, "scientific"
method has failed to resolve the opposing schools of thought on some of
these basics. Most "philosophies" which claim to resolve some of these
differences, have only been able to do so by adopting leaps of faith
which help resolve the age-old loose ends.
It is these leaps of faith which separate morals from ethics, and by any
yardstick available to philosophy, Objectivism is a moral code, not an
ethic. I don't have any problem with this, but attributing it *totally*
to scientific analysis is a fallacy.
>however, if someone still claims that philosophy is not a science, I must
>ask him to give the characteristics essential to the concept "science" which
>I have missed, explain why they are essential, then show that philosophy
>does not have them.
This is twisted logic. The above is useful for proving that all science
is philosophy, and I certainly agree with that. However, one can't
automatically deduce from that, that all philosophy is science. There are
certainly characteristics essential to philosophy, some of which are
mentioned above, for which pure scientific anaylsis fails miserably.
Science, for instance cannot prove that God does not exist, only that
there is insufficient evidence that God does exist. One could argue that
this only points out the failure of science to reveal the appropriate
evidence. But until that evidence is produced, resolving this
question *either way* requires a leap of faith. Yet philosophy has gone
as far as to determine "by scientific means", that the concept of a God
fulfills an identifiable human need whether or not God actually exists.
And so it goes ... the number of questions left unresolved by "scientific"
philosophy is at least as great as that which it has solved.
>these terms mean; however, I suspect that, were these arguments to be analysed,
>their net content would be something along the lines of: philosophy is not
>a science, because _we_ _say_ philosophy is not a science.
>
> Strangely, I am unmoved by such arguments.
>
> Philosophy _is_ a science--and anyone with a good knowledge of Objectivism
>knows it.
You may not care, but your arguments certainly sound like the opposite:
Philosophy is a science, because _we_ (who know Objectivism) _say_ philosphy
is a science.
I am unmoved by such arguments. Not strangely at all.
>Until and unless this happens, I consider the matter closed.
You are most welcome to consider the matter closed. That doesn't mean
that it IS closed, but it reveals plenty about your attitudes on
philosophy.
The amount of closed-mindedness I have seen on this subject exceeds
anything I have seen on the net before, and rivals religious fundamentalism
in its intolerance of opposing views. I even wonder why I bother to respond,
except that this stubbornness, this "my-way-is-right-and-the-matter-is-closed"
attitude, flies in the face of on-going philosophical study, and mocks
the very discipline it claims to be part of.
--
The Northwest Territories: | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software
Where men are men, women | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
are scarce, and caribou are | ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan
very careful how they walk. | (416) 452-0504
jeff daiell
> About the Skepticism vs Realism debate I mentioned earlier I suggest
> read Rene Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy".
Aren't you afraid you'll be accused of putting Descartes before the horse?
Drawing on a Cartesian well of experience,
Jeff
--
"Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition."
--- Firesign Theater
jeff daiell
> It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote
> on one proposal independently from the other. So a person can vote
> Yes to both, or No to both, or a combination thereof.
>
voting No to both? {|8^)]
Jeff
--
"Justice, like lightning, should ever appear
To some men hope - to other men fear."
-- Jefferson Pierce
greg Nowak
Those of you who want an objectivism group first and foremost can
simply vote yes for both, and then the sci.diehards will benefit from
your votes. The beauty of voting simultaneously is that it puts an end
to the interminable sci.vs. talk discussion, and no one loses. The
population of those who want sci so badly that they would vote no for
talk seems to be small enough that it wouldn't affect the vote, and if
it did, far better that it would affect the vote rather than the
newsgroup.
rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ
Bruce Thompson
where *.philosophy.objectivism is going to go, and it occurs to me that it's
not that big of a deal!
Claims have been made that Objectivism or for that matter Philosophy as an
entire discipline is or is not an "established" or non-"established" science
and both sides of the fence seem to be blinding themselves of an important
point: ITS NOT THAT IMPORTANT!!!
The main goal of the current discussion period is to determine whether or not
a group is warranted for the discussion of Objectivism. I think that the
general consensus (Correct me if I'm wrong) is that such a group would indeed
be appropriate. Where the group resides, it appears to me, is not as important
in this discussion.
The claim has been made by many writers that placing *.p.o under talk would
tend to destroy the ability for serious discussion in the group. I submit that
there may be a group of people (say group A) who will use the group for
serious discussion and a group (B) that will be simply involved in frivolous
nonsense. Group C, those not in A or B will be discounted (no offense :->). It
is my opinion that the only difference between s.p.o and t.p.o will be the
size of group B. I agree that it MIGHT be larger under talk. I don't think
that's necessarily a problem.
On the other side, I cannot see how having s.p.o will in any way affect the
other groups under sci, nor do I think it matters. I see merits in the
arguments for and against Philosophy as a science. I think that it depends on
the particular brand of philosophy, and I am certainly willing to concede that
the distinction may be a totally subjective one.
Again, I have no problem with this. Before you ask, YES I AM SITTING ON THE
FENCE. I really don't care where the group goes, I'm only interested at this
point in seeing the group get created. I personally think that TALK.p.o will
be the choice that will most likely succeed, but I don't think that the
quality of discussion within the group will be affected in any great manner.
In short, I think that a very large mountain is being constructed from a very
small molehill.
*WE* are John Galt.
Cheers,
Bruce.
==============================================================================
Bruce Thompson | "I've got this terrible pain in all the
NovAtel Communications Ltd. | diodes down my left side" - Marvin the
bru...@ksi.cpsc.Ucalgary.ca | 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.
Chuq Von Rospach
>In case you haven't already guessed it, this is another article
>Criticizing the Hierarchical System and Calling for Something to be
>Done about It.
As the person who long ago sponsored the creation of sci, I'd like to simply
state (again) for the record that I think in retrospect it was a really
stupid idea on my part. I think that the reality of sci.* matches nothing at
all what we hoped for it when we created it.
The best thing to do is not try to fix sci.*, but to get rid of it. Merge
the existing groups into the rest of the structure in appropriate places,
using misc as a top level domain (one thing I don't understand is why people
don't think of putting things in misc more often). Try, for instance:
*.aquaria [I won't comment on this to avoid flamewars off the subject]
*.research [delete?]
*.virtual-worlds [???]
misc.econ[omics]
misc.edu
misc.energy [tech.energy? politics.energy?]
misc.math
misc.math.crypt
misc.math.logic
misc.math.num-analysis
misc.math.stat
misc.math.symbolic
misc.med
misc.med.aids
misc.med.physics
misc.psychology
misc.sci.astro
misc.sci.bio
misc.sci.bio.technology
misc.sci.nanotech
misc.sci.physics
misc.sci.physics.fusion
misc.space
misc.space.shuttle
misc.tech.aeronautics
misc.tech.chem
misc.tech.electronics
misc.tech.military
soc.culture.japan
soc.culture.lang
soc.politics.environment
talk.philosophy.meta
talk.philosophy.tech
talk.skeptic
misc.sci is limited to the 'hard' sciences in this case. misc.tech takes on
some of the sci groups that are really technology groups. Other's have been
split out into their own second level domains because they really fit
together (math, med, space...) better than they do being wedged into
something like sci. And a few have been moved to other domains to fit their
usage or to merge in with existing namespace trees elsewhere.
This isn't a serious suggestion -- it's a rough cut off the top of my head
to show alternatives and start discussion. So don't flame me for my choices:
suggest better choices.
>What's needed is not to raise the image of talk; what's needed is a
>top level domain parallel to sci, for groups with topics that are sciences
>but not natural or hard sciences.
Better yet, since talk has traditionally been the 'dumping' ground for
groups we more or less want to ignore, do away with talk.* completely and
either get rid of the groups or merge them into the mainline domains. Talk
has never been anything more than a convenient way for system administrators
to easily get rid of a subsection of the net without a lot of hassle. The
question is: is this really a good idea? Would it be better to just quit
fooling ourselves and do away with them? Or merge the ones we want to keep
into the mainline and stop making them second class names?
>Anybody have an idea for a domain name?
The only new domain I'd like to see is 'micro.*', so we can split the huge
and horribly unwieldy 'comp.*' into cleaner pieces by taking all of the
microcomputer/pc/etc groups and splitting them out (also giving us a chance
to clean things up a bit as well). That's an area that need to be addressed.
unfortunately, it's not controversial or noisy, so it doesn't get a lot of
airplay. As far as the problems elsewhere, they can be dealt with inside the
current structure with some thought.
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> ch...@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking]
There is one difference between a discussion and a flame. A discussion
is about an issue. A flame is about someone involved in a discussion.
Mehul Dave
[Some good suggestions to maintaing quality and low volume on SPO]
>The above guidelines need to be formalized, and perhaps added to. Does anyone
>have any further comments on this issue?
It would be a good idea to post a summary of what is the scope of the
newsgroup and the rules every month, say, on the newsgrop. One may
also consider mailing a copy of the charter to any new contributor who
may post material not appropriate to the newsgroup. Actually, there are
some good suggestions on good writing style in the postings in
news.announce.newusers and these combined with the suggestions you and
Bob Stubblefield have made, should help very much towards establishing
a quality newsgroup.
--
--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
"To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
The Cat in the Hat
She said that he said that she said that rw...@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) said:
-It is time to bring the discussion (if I may dignify it with that word) over
-sci vs. talk for *.philosophy.objectivism to a close.
It's been that time for a long time. Let me take an objective[1] look
at your argument.
-Those of us who have been arguing for sci.philosophy.objectivism have given a
-lengthy, detailed and cogent defense of our position. We have demonstrated
-that:
Lengthy, yes. Detailed, yes. Cogent? Maybe. Boring? Yes.
- 1) Philosophy is a science.
Agreed. Only a couple of people have been arguing otherwise.
They can be ignored.
- 2) This accords with the intention and current usage of the sci.*
- hierarchy.
Ah. Tricky. Because there's also a talk.philosophy.misc. And based on
the discussion, ?PO is also in accordance with the intention and current
usage of the talk.* hierarchy.
- 3) Thus, the newsgroup should be sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Thus the newsgroup should be talk.philosophy.objectivism.
-The most fruitful area of discussion to start on is the issue of how to
-maintain the quality of discussion on the newsgroup without a moderator. Bob
-Stubblefield has made some very good comments on this subject, and I will
-continue on this subject in future messages.
No matter what, I feel that discussions about a specific philosophy, like a
specific religion (almost the same thing) belong in a talk.* group, unless
the group is moderated. It's a highly personal issue, that people *will*
become incensed about, and *will* generate much heat. Unless that's dealt
with with a moderator, it doesn't belong in sci.
David
[1] Objective: 3a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as
percieved without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
interpretations.
--
David Bedno aka da...@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
"That's it...lazy bitch swapping." - forgotten by request
The Cat in the Hat
She said that he said that she said that ev...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) said:
-I'm getting tired of talking to people with surgically-attached blinkers.
-To anyone lurking it must be apparent, that these folks are clearly dealing
-with a political/economic agenda masquerading as an academic school of
-thought. Sorta like Scientology without the fees.
I'm lurking. I guess maybe I'm reading different articles than you, because
I don't come to the same conclusion as you. Maybe your blinders are
forcing you to come to your conclusion...
-It is here (and other subtle places) that the political agenda of
-Objectivism crawls into the open. The Word is That According to Ayn, and
-those who do not believe (ie, do not accept the "objective ethics")
-are either naiive or evil.
-
-In other words, it's just another religion, based on belief in self and
-personal property rather than a supreme being or community, and
-attempting to justify itself on "scientific" grounds.
-
-What a religion - become an Objectivist, and you're your own God!
Objectivism is not a religion because it lacks a centralized body of
specific beliefs. It only provides a framework for the creation of
a religion. You can't have a religion without a philosophy. And not
all philosophies lead to religions.
But I digress...
Jeff Vogel
>With all due respect, who cares where this bboard lies in the USENET hierarchy?
There are two reasons to care:
1. Pride. Objectivists cannot handle the idea that there innate belief could
be thought of as less than a science, and non-objectivists cannot understand
why anyone could believe otherwise.
Not a terribly good reason, but good for a few flames.
2. Propagation. Some sites do not get all hierarchies. Readers at sites who
only get sci. will miss there objectivist fix, and same sites, if they only
want scientific postings (like mine was, for a long time) don't want to have
to pay for them.
Not sufficient reasons for all the hoopla, I grant, but rest assured you can
all call each other names for at least some reason.
--
| Jeff Vogel, Harvey Mudd College, CA : jvo...@jarthur.claremont.edu |
Robert Tracinski
>The problem is not whether philosophy is science; the problem is the
>Usenet definition (or is it Spaf's?) of science. Philosophy IS A
>SCIENCE that seems to be excluded from the sci hierarchy by Usenet's
>definition of sci.
I have as yet to see why this is so besides the general argument that somehow
that's "just not the way sci is intended to work". Am I missing some vital
information here?
>There is a lot of disagreement about whether "science" = the hard
>sciences, like physics and chemistry, or a more general definition,
>such as Robert's above. I sort of like the idea of making a distinction
>between natural sciences and other sciences, such as social sciences.
The best differentiation is between the physical sciences (those concerned
solely with the study of physical nature) and the "human sciences", i.e. the
humanities (those concerned with the study of human nature). The human
sciences include philosophy, psychology (and cog. sci.?), economics,
education etc. It includes any science whose main subject is man, not from a
(purely) physical standpoint (i.e. not biology), but from the a standpoint
which takes into account the nature of the human mind, and the realm of human
values and action. I based my recommendation for putting *PO in sci on the
basis of the fact that all of the other human sciences are there, and, in the
absence of a more fitting hierarchy, I consider those arguments conclusive.
>Another part of the problem is that, if sciences are to be assigned
>to newsgroups following the narrow Usenet (or Spaf) definition of
>science, then sciences other than natural sciences really have nowhere
>to go. So they are unceremoniously dumped into other inappropriate
>domains. Such as talk. I feel indignant about this wonderful special
>treatment that the hard sciences get! They get their own hierarchy,
>and other branches get shat upon. I'd like to see the Other Sciences
>have their own wonderful place to hang out in.
>
>In case you haven't already guessed it, this is another article
>Criticizing the Hierarchical System and Calling for Something to be
>Done about It.
>
>Science isn't talk.
>What's needed is not to raise the image of talk; what's needed is a
>top level domain parallel to sci, for groups with topics that are sciences
>but not natural or hard sciences.
>
>Anybody have an idea for a domain name?
Somebody raised the idea of a hum.* hierarchy. Sounds good to me. That way,
all of the defenders of the "sci is just for experimental sciences" viewpoint
are satisfied, and the proponents of SPO don't get dumped in talk.
Under such a system, what would talk be for? For discussion of specific
political issues (e.g. talk.abortion) or other topics which are too narrow
to qualify as sciences. That's just a start--perhaps someone can suggest a
more positive criterion?
> Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA
> ka...@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen
Robert
--
Robert Tracinski | I've given up on Objectivism. Reality isn't
<rw...@tank.uchicago.edu> | absolute or immutable. That's just the way
University of Chicago | things are, and nobody can change it.
Peter Cash
>...dictionary definition deleted
>Science n.;
>...dictionary definition deleted
>
>Definitions above from: "Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" - 1961
>
>
>Clearly, unless one wishes to rewrite the definitions and thereby distort
>the meaning of any of the above terms, philosophy (as defined; often in
>opposition to how it is practiced) is and must be considered a science.
Clearly, this is a lesson in how a little (very little) knowledge can be a
dangerous thing. The dictionary is a good place for finding superficial
information about words; don't expect profundity or keen insight there. And
don't expect to find an ultimate court of appeal; dictionaries sometimes
disagree, and sometimes they're wrong.
When Webster's talks about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely
used in the very loosest sense. Science is empirical; to be scientific, a
question must--at least in theory--be capable of resolution by experiment.
Modern philosophy deals with precisely those questions that cannot--*even
in theory*--ever be resolved through experiment. If one can devise an
experiment that would solve a question, then that question is not a
philosophical one. Philosophy is therefore not "scientific".
I do hope you Objectivists get your very own newsgroup soon.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) | cash@convex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Cash
>About the Skepticism vs Realism debate I mentioned earlier I suggest
>read Rene Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy". Great work
>that attempts to provide a base for reality without presuposing the
>existance of reality. Excellent philosophizing.
>basically he starts by saying that if he is pondering the nature of his
>own existance then he must exist to be able to do that. All things are
>taken from there.
Yes, but does he really go anywhere? The doubts that he raises in the
First Meditation are very powerful; I doubt whether he ever really settles
them. Remember, there are three kinds of doubt in the 1st Meditation:
1. Doubts about the veracity of the senses ("My senses have sometimes
deceived me", so maybe they're *never* reliable)
2. The dream argument (Maybe I'm dreaming right now; maybe my whole life
is a dream)
3. The Evil Genius (who can deceive Descartes about everything, even the
principles of mathematics and geometry).
Against these doubts, Descartes pits two insights:
a. If I doubt my own existence, then I must exist.
b. God exists, is good, and wouldn't fool around with me (i.e. allow me to
be mistaken about really important stuff, like that the world exists, etc.)
Lots of commentators have remarked on the weaknesses in Descartes'
arguments, and I'm really not saying anything new when I tell you that
Descartes doesn't rescue us from the skepticism into which he deliberately
plungs us in the 1st M.
For example, "a" doesn't prove that Descartes exists. Maybe it proves that
*something* exists, or is muttering to itself, but not that the "I" exists.
After all, Descartes could be wrong about so many things. Maybe he's a
troglodyte that lives at the bottom of a well and dreams about being a man.
Maybe he's some wraith that's come into existence for a moment, "dreams" up
a life history, says to itself, "I doubt, therefore I am", and then pops
out of existence again. Maybe words ("exist", "I", "doubt", "am", etc.)
don't mean what Descartes thinks they do. (The Evil Genius is very
powerful, remember!)
Certainly, the Evil Genius could mislead Descartes about the nature of God,
so "b" doesn't follow.
The best tack to take is to re-examine the doubts that get Descartes
started. The best analysis of these that I have ever seen is in Bourdain's
commentary on the Meditations in _Objections and Replies_. (Yes, the
article that the editor considers to be "utterly without merit" and that is
placed last in the book.) I think that G.E.M. Anscombe edited a version of
_Objections and Replies_; your library should have a copy.
Peter da Silva
less important. The sci people would have a better chance of getting their
group passed if it was moderated, though, so it might be a good idea to try
it that way. Everyone wins.
Eric J Peterson
| In article <TORKEL.90...@echnaton.sics.se>, torkel@sics (Torkel Franzen) writes:
| >In article <2...@fornax.UUCP> mi...@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes:
|
| > >It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote
| > >on one proposal independently from the other. So a person can vote
| > >Yes to both, or No to both, or a combination thereof.
|
| > Yes, I didn't think of this. Still, I think we shouldn't have
| >simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply
| >refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk".
|
| simply vote yes for both, and then the sci.diehards will benefit from
| to the interminable sci.vs. talk discussion, and no one loses.
First, two observations:
(1) There definitively seems to be enough interest and motivation for
creating a *.phil.obj news group, so much so that the eventual
creation of a group seems to be a given.
(2) The last remaining topic is where to put it, either in sci.* or
talk.*.
Instead of having two separate Yes/No votes going on, why not just have one
Sci/Talk vote? You vote one time, either for sci.phil.obj or
talk.phil.obj, thereby eliminating biases in the voting caused by voting
yes twice or no twice in an independent vote. I know that this is bending
the guidelines somewhat, but doesn't this seem to be the most diplomatic,
even more so than putting it in soc.*?
Just an idea ...
Eric
--
Eric J. Peterson <> pete...@nu.cs.fsu.edu <> uunet!nu.cs.fsu.edu!peterson
Florida State Univ * CS Systems Support Group * Room 011 Love * (904) 644-2296
echo "This is not a pipe." | lpr -P laserjet; more ~/.disclaimer
mike.siemon
> I'd like this person to give a rational explanation of why he finds
> Objectivism hilarious.
One of the classic studies of laughter (from a philosophic viewpoint :-)
was by Bergson. In brief, he suggested that we consider humorous those
behaviors or situations in which human beings are seen as "mechanical"
(or in more modern idiom, programmed) where a normal onlooker sees the
mechanism as inappropriate.
Case closed.
--
Michael L. Siemon As grain once scattered on the hillside
cucard!dasys1!mls Was in this broken break made one,
att!sfbat!mls So from all lands thy church be gathered
standard disclaimer Into thy kingdom by thy son.
Gene W. Smith
>Somebody raised the idea of a hum.* hierarchy. Sounds good to me. That way,
>all of the defenders of the "sci is just for experimental sciences" viewpoint
>are satisfied, and the proponents of SPO don't get dumped in talk.
That was me. If we follow your idea of putting stuff like econ
there, it should explicitly say in the charter that "hum" is for
the humanities and "human" or social sciences, so we don't get
this argument all over again. My idea is that if a subject area
(e.g., philosophy) is taught at most universities as a Letters &
Science type academic discipline, it should be able to find a
place in either sci or hum.
--
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
Brad Templeton
usenet, why not ask just how useful they are?
Aside from talk, how many sites are:
a) Getting just one or two hiearchies, or (ie. comp,sci,news)
b) Getting all but one or two hiearchies. (ie. rec, soc, misc)
With minor fine tuning. I am sure there are some sites out there, leaf
sites and so on, in this condition, but how many are there?
There are expiring and feeding programs out now that tune to the newsgroup
level, why do we even need these hiearchies? Even if you want to say
"give me all of comp, but none of rec" how hard is it to grep for
those strings in the active file to create the needed lists?
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
Mike Jones
Hmm. Since the Objectivist types (especially the "sci diehards") are
going on at length about the superiority of reason and rational
responce, one would have to assume that this position shouldn't be
difficult at all unless one were determined in the face of all opposition
to have a sci. group, no?
Mike Jones | Oh, these computers. They're so naughty.
AIX Kernel Development | I could just *pinch* them.
Kingston, NY | - Marvin Martian
.!uunet!ibmps2!aix!mjones
Mike Jones
the only real opposition I have seen was of the "no, it should be sci.!"
type, isn't is appropriate to have a call for votes for t.p.o? There has
certainly been enough discussion about s.p.o that one of its proponents
could, if he wishes, call for votes on that, too, but that's an entirely
independent issue.
Peter da Silva
arts.* Arts and Humanities.
tech.* Technology and Engineering (excluding computers).
Then we can mass-move some groups out of sci.
In article <38...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
> The only new domain I'd like to see is 'micro.*',
How about compromising on comp.pc, as a parallel to comp.sys? It's not
so hard to put "!comp.pc" in your sys file. If we're going to split comp,
pulling "sources.*" and "binaries.*" out would be a goodness.
Like it or not, micros are computers. And they're getting into bigger and
bigger jobs and absorbing more and more of the computer market.
Miron Cuperman
> >It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote
> >on one proposal independently from the other.
>simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply
>refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk".
Ok. I concede the point. The sci vote should be first since it is
harder. What is the procedure for the call for votes? When can one
post it?
Miron Cuperman <mi...@cs.sfu.ca>
Gary Tse
> Still, I think we shouldn't have
>simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply
>refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk".
>prefer not to put the "sci" diehards in this difficult position.
I find it amusing that objectivists would be willing to compromise on
finding the right hierarchy in order to push through a vote on the
newsgroup.
Just an observation.
--
Gary Tse, ga...@ios.convergent.com || ..!pyramid!ctnews!ios!garyt
t...@soda.berkeley.edu || ..!ucbvax!soda!tse
t...@cup.portal.com /*blecht*/ || ..!sun!cup.portal.com!tse
"Sorta like Scientology without the fees." -- Evan Leibovitch
The Cat in the Hat
She said that he said that she said that rw...@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) said:
-As if to prove my point, the discussion about sci vs. talk has gotten even
-sillier, to the point where people are arguing that it should be talk on the
-basis of volume alone (??!). I guarantee that the volume of SPO won't exceed
-that of several sci groups (SPT, for example).
Does this mean that if it ever approaches that volume that you'll stop
posting (to SPO)? It's about the only guarentee you can make.
Volume is a very good reason to put a group someplace. The fact that this
discussion is generating all this volume may not reflect the volume in
the final newsgroup, but it does show that people are willing to let
themselves get worked up over this topic. And that means there'll be
volume, flames and ideology bashing.
-That is one reason (though by no means the main reason) that the sci group
-will be better; that sort of thing [flaming for it's own sake] is less
-common on sci than on talk.
Only because the majority of talk groups are about politics and religion.
Just *try* and hold a quiet discussion on those topics, even with someone
you agree with. You're doomed to failure.
-Just to put some meat into this assertion, and also to start some discussion of
-the charter, I'll give a list of guidelines which should help to keep the
-overall quality of discussion on SPO high. Something like this should be
-included in the charter for SPO.
Remember that unless a group is moderated, the charter doesn't mean a thing.
Oh, and I'll make a point now that you seem to have overlooked; some places
don't have rn, and so don't have kill files.
-3) To help with (1) and (2), either develop epic self-restraint or use a kill
-file Believe me, it will make your life easier.
Thank you for trying to dictate my behaviour. What right do *you* have to
decide who's articles I should read?
-4) Never post unless you have a point that is worth making.
Pardon the polite flame: "Then why do you keep posting?" You've been
making the same argument based on the same fallacy (that people won't
post flames in a sci.* group) for some time now. Why do I keep following
up your articles? Because there are people out there who may agree with
you, and I feel it necessary to state my opinions on the topic.
Also because I think I'm one of the few people who is following most of
this discussion who doesn't care about philosophy, objective or otherwise.
Someone should be commenting on this from the viewpoint of the uninvolved
net.person.
Let me restate my beliefs, in case you think I'm biased: Philosophy in
general is a topic that can be discussed in a scientific manner. For such
a thing, a sci group is appropriate. Specific philosophies; philosophies
that will generate much discussion because people have a personal investment
in them, belong in talk, unless moderated. I look forward to a mail
response (less so to more bandwith usage).
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: da...@sco.COM -or- ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,attctc}!sco!dave
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
A newsgroup for posting lists?
Good idea? Bad idea?
mail yes...@sco.COM last day to vote is 2/5 mail nov...@sco.COM
Karen Valentino
>Astrology is based upon observations, but it is not a science. What
>distinguishes natural philosophy (science) is that it has generally
>accepted methods for going from observations to theories.
Webster's disagrees with you. Science is defined in the dictionary
more broadly than you define it, and only includes the natural sciences
as one of its definitions. Astrology, which is an area of systematized
knowledge, *is* a science. But that does not automatically give
astrology, or Objectivism, entree into the sci hierarchy.
I think it is a mistake to argue against Objectivism as a science.
Webster's specificially mentions theology, sport, and *cooking*
as sciences. Arguing against Objectivism by complaining that it
is political seems useless to me, because *politics* is a science.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL SCIENCES GO IN SCI!
Instead, the arugment should about what sciences get to go in sci.
And, ideally to me, other sciences should have a place to go
besides the Dumping Grounds of talk. (I agree that many topics
are appropriate to the talk hierarchy. Often newsgroup proposers
seek talk when they make their proposals. But it seems to me that
sometimes topics get "shoved" into talk--in those instances talk
acts like a catchall hierarchy for subjects because there isn't
a better place to put them. I'm against "talk by default.")
Based on the current system, I believe that Objectivism should go
in talk. But couldn't we also look at the bigger picture--the
system as it exists? It leaves lots to be desired, IMO.
Karen
--
Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA
ka...@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen
"The best way out is always through." Robert Frost
Karen Valentino
>When Webster's talks about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely
>used in the very loosest sense.
I would say that "science" is used in its *broadest* sense; this word
seems less loaded to me. Philosophy is not natural science. But it
is science.
>Science is empirical; to be scientific, a
>question must--at least in theory--be capable of resolution by experiment.
I disagree with this statement. Empiricism is knowledge gained through
observation and experience. It is a way of gaining information that may,
or may not, be confirmed by experimentation. There's no requirement that
it *must.*
This quibbling over definitions stuff is fun.
Honestly, though, and I've repeated it often enough elsewhere, the
argument here is not whether philosophy is a science; the argument
is over what sciences should go in sci.
>philosophical one. Philosophy is therefore not "scientific".
"scientific : of, relating to, or exhibiting, the methods or principles
of science."
I don't think of philosophy as being "scientific," either, although
I definitely assert that it is a science. But I'm wondering if what's
needed is for me to expand my view of what is "scientific," rather than
insisting that others narrow theirs.
asan...@adobe.com
ca...@convex.com writes:
>...The dictionary is a good place for finding superficial information about
>words; don't expect profundity or keen insight there...When Webster's talks
>about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely used in the very loosest
>sense. Science is empirical; to be scientific, a question must--at least in
>theory--be capable of resolution by experiment...
Personally, I have found the dictionary to be full of keen insights. The
derivation of words is often especially revealing of their deeper meaning.
For example:
science -- from the Latin *sciens* ("having knowledge"), which is in turn
from *scire* ("to know"), akin to *scindere* ("to cut").
philosophy -- from the Greek *phil-* ("loving") + *sophia* ("wisdom").
empirical -- from the Greek *empeiria* ("experience").
Mind you, I am not particularly interested in debating whether philosophy
is a science. In the first place, we would have to begin by considering the
question: "what is science?" It is not necessarily confined to the incredibly
specialized investigations that characterize modern scientific practice. And
philosophy, for all its "scientific" inexactness, is (in its best sense)
based just as surely upon observable phenomena as "science" is. The point
being: the more "cut and dried" the analysis, the less objective the
conclusion.
-Alan
Peter da Silva
|The talk proponets continue to hurl
|invectives as their main method of argumentation, and scorn we sci proponents
|for failing to fully prove our points, as if we had to footnote each
|sentence with a philosophic treatise, a delimitation of context, and an
|answer to any possible objections, while all they have to do is scream like
|children that we have not done so.
It is relevent to note, here, that you do seem to be using words in a way
contrary to normal English usage... for example: by claiming to be basing
your philosophy on reason then using such emotionally laden invectives as
"evil" to describe your opponents and their arguments. Thus it seems not
unreasonable to expect you to define your terms, or if you're not willing
to do so at least to restrict yourself to using words in such a way that
your arguments may be understood by those not thoroughly schooled in the
particular language of your discipline.
Brad Morrison
Top Ten
Reasons Why The Objectivism Group Should Be in The Sci Hierarchy
Or Inedible Leftovers
10. There's not enough room in alt!
9. Talk group won't lend enough dignity to my flames!
8. Rancid pork!
7. Elvis doesn't get talk groups at his site!
6. Vmsnet sites threatened to alias talk.politics.objectivism to rec.aquaria!
5. Salmonella-infested bean curd!
4. Talk group would generate insufficient controversy for UseNET's
grist mill!
3. Spam!
2. "talk" is just one too many characters to type!
And the number one reason...
1. Ayn Rand would have wanted it that way!
--
Brad Morrison (713) 274-5449 | My MEATLOAF is RUINED--because
Ferranti International Controls Corporation | my kitchen lacks a FULL STREAMS
morr...@ficc.uu.net | IMPLEMENTATION!!!
morr...@ficc.lonestar.org | -- Zippy (Am I POSIX yet?)
Craig E. Ward
Nice rhetorical device.
>Those of us who have been arguing for sci.philosophy.objectivism have given a
>lengthy, detailed and cogent defense of our position. We have demonstrated
>that:
> 1) Philosophy is a science.
> 2) This accords with the intention and current usage of the sci.*
> hierarchy.
> 3) Thus, the newsgroup should be sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Premise 1 is false. Philosophy is not a science. Philosophy is an art.
Philosophy lacks some of the characteristics of the sciences. One of the
most glaring is the inability to perform experiments of the same mode as in
the sciences.
In a scientific experiment, all but a small number, ideally one, of the
variables involved with the experiment are controlled. After the experiment
is performed, it can be repeated letting another variable "vary." These
kinds of experiments are difficult, perhaps beyond human ability, in the
realm of philosophy. How are all the variables to be isolated, or even known
ahead of time? The number of possible variables is great, leaving the
philosopher to navigate by dead reckoning and rules of thumb, just as his
artist colleagues.
Lacking the capability to perform experiments takes the scientific method out
of philosophy, therefore philosophy is not science.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that because something is not scientific,
that it lacks critical thinking and discipline. Although, that the
objectivists on the net wish to dress themselves as scientists does say
something of the quality of their thinking.
Another approach to this argument would be to state that philosophy is not a
science; science is a philosophy. Taking that argument forward I'll leave as
an exercise for the reader.
--
Craig E. Ward <c...@venera.isi.edu> Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit"
USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Dave Jones
>
> I'd like this person to give a rational explanation of why he finds
> Objectivism hilarious.
>
I wasn't the person, so I can only guess. But then do we ever really
know why we have the emotional responses we do? Do we ever know why
we think the things we do? Even in reasonable people, reason is only
a small part of it. We know more about dung beetles than we do about
the working of the human brain. Well I personally don't know all that
much about dung beetles, but let's not quibble over details. What I am
getting around to is that it is impossible to give a "rational explanation"
of hilarity. But then that never stopped me before, eh?
So my conjecture as to why he thinks it's funny, is that he sees the
Objectivist as a silly person who believes himself quite profound. No
doubt it would be unfair to suggest that all objectivists are like that,
but it can happen. I mentioned in another posting that I was once an
Objectivist. I had a subscription to the Objectivist, and could quote
Ayn Rand chapter and verse. And yes, it happened to me.
A couple of years ago I was visting my parents, who brought out some old
photos. One of them was about the most embarrassing object I have ever had
the misfortune to view. It was taken during my Objectivist period. I was
about twenty-one years old, wearing a tweed jacket with those leather
academician patches on the elbows, wearing a pipe in my emaciated face, the
chin of which was partially obscured by a Van Dyke beard which bore a more
than passing resemblance to grape-mold, and was looking down my nose with a
confident air of absolute intellectual supremacy.
I think that may be the sort of thing he had in mind. Everybody else
thought it was a real hoot. A guaranteed crowd pleaser.
Robert Garmong
>harder.
Furthermore, we should postpone a vote for any group, for the following
reasons:
1) There has been little discussion on a charter for either group,
and that should precede any call for votes. We need to know what
we're getting into before we start counting votes.
2) The machines at ATT (at least in New Jersey) are not receiving any
mail or USENET postings, and so cannot take part in any vote, call
for votes, etc. This is relevant, in this case, because the one who
_started_ this whole thing by his postings on sci.philosophy.tech,
R.W. Stubblefield, cannot take part in the discussion, nor can he
propose sci.philosophy.objectivism. I think it is proper to give
him the chance to put forward his own ideas (charter, etc.) before
we vote on any group, sci.* _or_ talk.*
3) The poll which Bill Wells recently posted was skewed, as at least
three, and possibly more, people at Bellabs were not able to vote.
4) As Miron notes, the vote for sci.* should precede that for talk.*,
as sci.* is the more controversial, and therefore the more likely
to get voted down.
What is the procedure for the call for votes? When can one
>post it?
>
Anyone have any answers on this? Mr. Stubblefield seems to know the rules,
but, as I have mentioned, he is currently incommunicado. So is there anyone
who can inform me as to when it would be appropriate to start pushing for a
vote on sci.philosophy.objectivism? I would advocate taking several more days
for discussion on charters, based on Mr. Stubblefield's preliminary suggestion,
and call for a vote within a week. Then, the "talk."'ers could begin
discussing their charter if SPO fails. We need to be as methodical about this
as possible, so that we obtain the best possible result for all concerned.
--Robert Garmong
--University of Chicago
Undergraduate department of economics.
Torkel Franzen
>Hmm. Since the Objectivist types (especially the "sci diehards") are
>going on at length about the superiority of reason and rational
>response, one would have to assume that this position shouldn't be
>difficult at all unless one were determined in the face of all opposition
>to have a sci. group, no?
Objectivists, of course, must be expected to act on the basis of
supremely rational considerations (taking into account all known facts
and never turning their backs on Ayn Rand's philosophy), so no doubt it
is as you say. Still, I would prefer to take even unnecessary
precautions to ensure that this wonderful scheme of creating a
newsgroup for objectivists doesn't fail.
Miles O'Neal
|occurred in the sci vs. talk discussion since it began is that, in general,
|the proponents of talk have descended deeper into the depths of hostility and
|vulgarity. And, contrary to what some may think, the method of arguing
|_is_ indicative of the content. The talk proponets continue to hurl
|invectives as their main method of argumentation, and scorn we sci proponents
|for failing to fully prove our points, as if we had to footnote each
|sentence with a philosophic treatise, a delimitation of context, and an
|answer to any possible objections, while all they have to do is scream like
|children that we have not done so.
That could be said about you, as well, sir. And your kith & kin in this
group. While this mayt seem to fall under the auspices of rational
selfishness, (1) everyone who disagrees with you isn't as terminally
stupid as you seem to think they are, and (2) whatever it is, objective
(by ANY legitimate definition) it's not.
-Miles O'bjective
Howard Steel
>The best thing to do is not try to fix sci.*, but to get rid of it. Merge
>the existing groups into the rest of the structure in appropriate places,
>using misc as a top level domain (one thing I don't understand is why people
>don't think of putting things in misc more often). Try, for instance:
<examples deleted>
Bravo. Considering the amount of crossposting that is done between sci.*
and talk.* it seems apparaent that it is difficult for many people to
discriminate the two, so...make it one. The original concept was good,
unfortunately it is just to difficult to maintain.
--
/ / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / /
/ Howard...@Waterloo.NCR.COM NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N /
/ (519)884-1710 Ext 570 Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5 /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /