From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Question for Peter
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:34:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec11.174316.28171@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:

>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)).

  Mainly curiosity, I guess.  I like to find out how things work.  
  My first hobby, when I was 5 was astronomy, and that's also why I 
  liked to take things apart when I was a kid (to figure out what
  made them work).   That's probably how I got into engineering. 
  I find science is a good way to understand things.   But as I said, 
  whole civilizations have existed without it.



>>>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.

  Two things that are not connected cannot contradict each other, as
  I illustrated.   A contradiction occurs when two statements make 
  mutually exclusive statements about the same subject.  


>>>    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.

 Since I've read everything of a nonfictional nature (i.e., not
 including things like _Atlas Shrugged_) that Rand, wrote obviously
 I must think it worthy of study.  And again I call attention to this
 poster's reading skills, since I had already indicated to the net that
 I had read this material.

 I've also read, for instance, the Bible.  I urge everyone on the net
 to read both Rand and the Bible.   Does Mr. Thomas only read things
 he agrees with?   


>People here are often puting the _consequences_ of your words in your mouth,

  Mr. Thomas has made direct statements about what I've supposedly
  claimed and then been unable to quote the statements where I supposedly
  made these claims.   I think the "consequences" of my words (do words
  have consequences ... if I'm commanding a firing squad and I say "fire"


---peter
        




Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5508 talk.rape:2956 talk.religion.misc:24135