From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Question for Peter
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:43:16 GMT

In article <Bz3oDx.8z7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

[my comments about Peter touting the benefits of science deleted]

>  *I HAVE*??  Please quote some examples.  As I recall the three main
>  things I've used to illustrate my points are smallpox vaccinations,
>  atomic bombs, and pushing clergymen off of cliffs!    While the first
>  one is arguably beneficial, all three are chosen not to illustrate
>  "benefits" but to illustrate the fact that these things work as 
>  predicted without regard to *belief*.    That science may be beneficial
>  explains why people use it.   Whether it's *correct* is a function
>  of how well its models map to the real world.  I claim they map better
>  than those of any other approach.   
>  

A rhetorical question: just what exactely is the benefit to "models that map
to the real world"?  Not a rhetorical question: Why do _you_ want to be
scientific?  Why not wrong and contrdictory (I'm asking you this question,
not because I don't know the answer, but because I don't think you can
post the answer with a straight face--you'll directly contradict the above
paragraph (again)).

>  
>
>>PN, #1:
>>>   Whether randianism offers any "practical benefits" is a a whole
>>>   different question from the one we've been discussing.  I have
>>>   no idea how one would begin to answer such a question.
>>>
>>
>>PN, #2:
>>>   I'm certainly not suggesting that we reject anything that is
>>>   nonscientific.   Most of the things I value most in this world 
>>>   are nonscientific.  
>>>
>>
>>Obvious contradiction. 
>
>   If it's so obvious perhaps you can tell us why you think so.  
>   I say the two quoted statements are totally orthogonal, about
>   as "contradictory" as saying "The 10:20 from Bolton has a 
>   new conductor" and "The Rolls has a scratch on the bonnet".
>

I'm terribly sorry, I didn't mean to present these two paragraphs as a 
sylogism.  They are simply two example paragraphs--not particularly
connected to one another.

It's worth noting that you did not attack my primary thesis: that you core
argument has a big hole in it, and that you cannot, qua pragmatist, hold
consistent ideas.

>
>>    2. Objectivism is not "scientific", and therefore "bad"/not worthy of
>>       study.
>
>  Reading comprehension really does seem to be a problem in this 
>  group.  I've had so many people put words into my mouth it's a 
>  wonder I have room for my lunch!    What I said is that Objectivism
>  *claims* to be a rigorous discipline and it's not.   The fact that
>  Mr. Thomas apparently sincerely believes that I have made the 
>  statement that Objectivism is "bad"/not worthy of study" shows
>  that he cannot read or comprehend what he is reading.  

Nice try, but this is an easy one: just say, for all of us here, for the
record, that YOU THINK OBJECTIVISM IS "GOOD"/WORTHY OF STUDY.  Otherwise,
once again, my point is made.  (I'm expecting a rather "agnostic" answer,
everybody watch!)

People here are often puting the _consequences_ of your words in your mouth,
I admit--which from your standpoint looks like people puting words in your
mouth (or so you say).  I've said before that your argument style is very
dishonest: an example is the tactic of selectively choosing to understand/
not understand in a given situation...  When faced with a devastating
argument that points out your own contradiction, you just say, "I don't
understand".  Ignorance is bliss, no?


________
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy