HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Logic
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 02:51:13 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na

In article <1992Dec12.140820.21203@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Therefore, can those who believe that logic produces
>truth tell us what they mean by "logic"?  

I assume, as one who has disagreed with the "logic is language" claim,
that I am one of those you believe believe "that logic produces truth".
But it isn't so.  What a logic produces is *belief*.  It is a system
of inferences from beliefs to beliefs.  Maybe you think this is a quibble.
But logics and their nature is quite independent of one's commitments
to objective qualities like truth.  Whether or not one believes logic 
is language.  The question being debated here recently is whether those
belief(s) --> belief(s) relations are linguistic or linguistically-
arrived at relations.  

BTW, one "linguistic" stumbling block that keeps tripping us up in this
discussion is the systematic ambiguity between "science" and "subject 
matter of that science" in terms like _physics_, _biology_, etc.  A claim
like "Physics cannot exist without language" can be either at least very
nearly true or obviously false, depending on the reading.  I recently 
asked whether physics should be considered linguistic, intending _physics_
to mean 'the subject matter of the field of physics' (it was a rhettorical
question, I thought).  Understandably, some took _physics_ to mean 'the
scientific field of physics'.  It is just this confusion which seems to
be going on with logic, made more difficult because the field has
primarily focussed on human logics (if not always consciously) and so
it is easy to confuse the subject matter mental phenomenon with the
studying-the-subject-matter mental phenomenon.  Moreover, our
reasoning processes are *influenced* by linguistic experiences (and
other ones).  But the processes themselves and the relations they
produce between beliefs and what is inferred from them are not
*themselves* linguistic---just as gravity is not linguistic.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Death of America 3
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:08:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: One nation under God  

In article <16DEC199215280817@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:

>I would rather starve than continue to pay for corrupt government.

  It's this sort of emotionalism that makes me question the theory
  that "humans are rational".   How do you rationally justify this
  sort of self destructive behavior?   Wouldn't it make more sense
  to not starve so that you can continue to exist to oppose such a
  government?  Anyway virtually all governments (and human in-
  stitutions in general) are corrupt.  Have you ever paid any kinds
  of taxes?  I notice you're posting from a ".edu" site -- are you
  currently enjoying the benefits of corrupt government?  


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Keywords: my kingdom for a relevant newsgroup!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:42:39 GMT

In article <12DEC199206281152@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.031114.5838@athena.mit.edu>, 
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...
>
>>also, if you insist on filling our newsreaders with articles which are
>>90% bombast and 10% information, could you at least be decent enough
>>to identify yourself, "Mr. Boycott", so we know who the hell you are?
>
>Ok.
>
>I am the accuser of the prejudiced intellectualists bigots
>I am the final answer to the arrogance of the federalist Publius Caesar
>I am the `bombast,' the bomb blast, and the resurrection of Christian Anarchy

[remainder of interesting and totally irrelevant poetry deleted]

>I am the tied-on-tin-can prophet to the discardeds' dream
>I am saved like an empty pop can by The Homeless GOD -- thank Thee Lord
>I even I am still, plummeting outward in a white light void, having just passed
>  The Messiah headed back home.

thanks. i almost mistakenly took you seriously, you self-righteous fool.

care to take this to rec.poetry or alt.evangelist or something?

sheesh.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.society.anarchy,alt.cyberpunk,alt.conspiracy
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Death of America and Birth of "Republic of Maya"(NAFTA)
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:34:52 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Summary:  All good things come to an end.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:44:00 GMT

In article <BzA5xF.63K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, 
jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes...

>Well, for crying out loud.  Peter got mad when Tim called him
>arbitrary and subjective.  Now he writes:
> 
>>  I'm not making them as an economist, I'm making an arbitrary 
>>  subjective judgement. 
> 
>>  It just means that we have to respect the limits on our
>>  pronouncements: we cannot claim they represent great, transcendent
>>  truths.    It does not require a great deal of intelligence to 
>>  grasp such distinctions.
> 
>Indeed it does not.  And it shouldn't require too much more to
>recognize that there does exist a legitimate body of practical
>knowledge which can not be written down in the kind of precise
>and formal way that physical sciences can.
> 
>There is a big middle ground between 'arbitrary and subjective' and
>'science'.
> 
>--Jimbo

A brief aside. The Navy SEALs, much in the public eye of recent, to
their combined dismay and delight no doubt, used to have a member
whom we may call "The Bull Frog," (or simply BF for short). This is 
the same individual which Gordon Liddy used as a basis for a character 
in his book, _The Monkey Handlers_.

BF had quite a reputation. He'd been in the service for 40 years,
not an easy accomplishment. After 30 years, I think it is, it takes
special congressional approval for an enlisted man to remain on
active duty, which should give you some idea about the regard with
which this individual is held.

To make a long and illustrious story short, which no doubt BF him-
self would do having a true gift for brevity and succinctness...

The reason often cited for his longevity in the Teams was:

		     "corporate knowledge"

He'd been through it all, from well before JFK's formation of the 
SEALs, back when there was still only UDT. I can't recall for certain, 
but it seems that extended all the way back to WWII.

And the knowledge that was gained in WWII, military and otherwise,
we will be still be rediscovering for ages to come. Much of it could 
only be carried as corporate knowledge. Especially by folks who 
were much better at getting things done, than they were writing
about them.

-=  So show some respect for the Old Folks this Christmas, huh.  =-
-=  And take a tape recorder with you -- to capture their tales. =-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Economics and the Dart Board
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:07:24 GMT

In article <37944@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
}
}However, back then there was certainly no such thing as a concept of 
}economics.

Not as we know it, anyways.  Prior to Adam Smith, economics was thought of
as it had been written of in ancient Greek (who was the author again?):
"home-management."

Not that this detracts any of the other points that were made.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:41:20 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson
gs> Gary Strand

pn> I can certainly define situations where it *would* be in my best interest
    to kill someone.  But Randianism claims that this is wrong.

gs> Define such a situation.

  [Peter creates a scenario in which he commits the perfect murder so he can
   guarantee a healthy inheritance.]

pn> Other than abstract ethical considerations, why shouldn't I carry it out?

  Easy answer: You might get caught. I've yet to hear (or read) of a "perfect"
  murder. Unless the murderer and victim are two complete strangers (which
  creates problems for the murderer acting in her own self interest, ie, what
  possible benefit is there in murdering a stranger) and even then, there are
  a lot of possible "errors". One cannot get away with killing a relative that
  easily, especially in your scenario -- the maid could talk, the aunt shows
  up dead, you're in the will, if the aunt had found out about the indiscretion
  with the maid, you'd be cut out, &c &c.

  Other answer: What does this have to do with everyday ethics? Next time I
  have a puritanical, frail, rich, aunt who threatens to write me out of her
  will I'll remember that Objectivism doesn't necessarily tell me not to kill
  her. Rand took a dim view of what she called "lifeboat ethics". We don't 
  live in a world where such situations are commonplace, by definition. If
  we judge an ethical system by extrema, we'll never find one that's suitable.
  There's a trade-off, so to speak.

  I'm sure that you can hypothesize other scenarios that present more diffi-
  culty.




--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:53:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec11.214120.26941@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>pn> I can certainly define situations where it *would* be in my best interest
>    to kill someone.  But Randianism claims that this is wrong.
>
>gs> Define such a situation.
>
>  [Peter creates a scenario in which he commits the perfect murder so he can
>   guarantee a healthy inheritance.]
>
>pn> Other than abstract ethical considerations, why shouldn't I carry it out?
>
>  Easy answer: You might get caught. I've yet to hear (or read) of a "perfect"
>  murder.

  By this reasoning I shouldn't fly because the plane "might" crash, I
  shouldn't drive because a driver in the other lane "might" swerve into
  my lane and collide with me, I shouldn't use a table saw because the 
  the blade "might" <etc, etc>.   The premise in the story is that
  I had a high degree of confidence that my plan was foolproof.  
  Everything we do in life requires some assessment of the risks but
  in my story I have assessed the risks and decided that they are 
  small.  
                               
  If you're merely going to employ pragmatism then this makes burglary
  ethically "OK" for many people since 90% of US burglaries go unsolved
  and for some people 90% odds are acceptable.  Also what if someone
  doesn't care if they're caught?  Some people have weird psychological
  needs to be caught.   And what if you're talking about some lawless
  society like Yugoslavia or Somalia where your chances of being punished
  for random acts of self-serving violence are small?  The bottom line
  remains that the "consequences" argument fails because the universe just
  isn't structured in such a way that there are reliably "consequences" for 
  nasty acts.  Plenty of nasty people have gone to their graves wealthy, 
  happy, and unpunished.
  

>  Other answer: What does this have to do with everyday ethics? Next time I
>  have a puritanical, frail, rich, aunt who threatens to write me out of her
>  will I'll remember that Objectivism doesn't necessarily tell me not to kill
>  her.

  Because everyday circumstances may not allow us to get away with murder
  but they certainly give us plenty of opportunities to commit smaller
  acts of force and fraud, from playground encounters to finding some
  money on a colleague's desk.  The bottom line is the same: it is often 
  the case that we could employ force or theft to our advantage with 
  little risk of retribution.  
                                                                  

---peter








Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:17:43 GMT

Peter Nelson writes:

>  Do the math and explain what effect this will have on jobs.
>
>  If you assume a $350 billion dollar deficit, then this works out to 
>  about 10 million jobs @ $35K per person, which is about the US average
>  wage.   That probably would boost the unemployment rate to 16.5%,
>  *not* counting multipliers (e.g., the New York Times says defense industry
>  jobs have a "multiplier" of 2.5)

How interesting, coming from a person who repeatedly claims that
just this sort of prediction is what economics is incapable of
providing.  Perhaps Peter has access to some other method, besides
economic analysis, which somehow allows him to mke such confident
statements?

Let me make a general statement about what kinds of statements I
think qualify as 'aribtrary and subjective'.  If someone were to
utter the following, for example, it is clear that he or she needs
to sit down and rethink things:

It is impossible to predict X based on Y.
Y is the case.
Therefore, I predict X.

The substitutions here can be done in a number of ways.  You
could let 'Y' be 'economic data' or 'economic data plus some
economic theory'.  'X' could be just the sort of outcome Peter
is interested in projecting.

--Jimbo



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Summary: And going out toward Thee, I found Thee coming to me on the way. 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Sura 2, 186
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:12:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.174239.21842@athena.mit.edu>, 
cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...

>In article <12DEC199206281152@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec12.031114.5838@athena.mit.edu>, 
>>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...
>>
>>>also, if you insist on filling our newsreaders with articles which are
>>>90% bombast and 10% information, could you at least be decent enough
>>>to identify yourself, "Mr. Boycott", so we know who the hell you are?
>>
>>Ok.
>>
>>I am the accuser of the prejudiced intellectualists bigots
>>I am the final answer to the arrogance of the federalist Publius Caesar
>>I am the `bombast,' the bomb blast, and the resurrection of Christian Anarchy
> 
>[remainder of interesting and totally irrelevant poetry deleted]
> 
>>I am the tied-on-tin-can prophet to the discardeds' dream
>>I am saved like an empty pop can by The Homeless GOD -- thank Thee Lord
>>I even I am still, plummeting outward in a white light void, 
>>  having just passed The Messiah headed back home.
> 
>thanks. i almost mistakenly took you seriously, you self-righteous fool.
> 
>care to take this to rec.poetry or alt.evangelist or something?
> 
>sheesh.
> 
>--
>charles

From James Carse's _Finite and Infinite Games_
  Ballatine '86, p. 66...

	Culture is likely to break out in a society not when
	the poietai begin to voice a line contrary to that of
	the society, but when they begin to ignore all lines
	whatsoever and concern themselves with bringing the
	audience back into play -- not competative play, but
	play that affirms itself as play.

	What confounds a society is not serious opposition,
	but the lack of seriousness altogether. Generals can
	more easily suffer attempts to oppose their warfare
	with poeisis than attempts to show warfare as poiesis.

	Art that is used against a society or its policies gives
	up its character as infinite play, and aims for an end.
	Such art is no less propaganda than that which praises
	its heroes with high seriousness. Once warfare, or any
	other societal activity, has been taken into the infinite
	play of poiesis so that it appears to be either comical
	or pointless (in the way that, say, beauty is pointless),
	there is an acute danger that the soldiers will find no
	audience for their prizes, and therefore no reason to
	fight for them.


 -= Nicht eher, heilger Spielmann, halt ein! =-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Logic
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:08:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
| >                                         ...  Instead, one sees the
| >truth, from time to time, or one simply knows it, and then one attempts
| >to render or communicate it. ...

hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
| This happens in the physical sciences too.  I have heard many
| accounts of physicists and mathematicians who work hard on a
| problem, then take a break, and the answer "appears" to them.
| ....

I don't think we're talking about logic any more -- at
least, not what most people seem to mean when they use
the word.  

I split this thread off from another which shall not be
named because Tim Starr disagreed with my characterization
of logic as a form of language.  Tim, and others, believe
that logic is a way of knowing the truth, so I suppose 
they can tell us what it is, language or not.  Or rather
what they mean by it.  My guess is we're seeing exactly
the uncertainty of mapping the world with a language here,
but maybe someone can straighten it out.

Therefore, can those who believe that logic produces
truth tell us what they mean by "logic"?  I assume the
meaning is well understood; otherwise we would not know
whether we were using it or not, and thus whether or
not truth was being produced.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:30:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.195914.6340@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson

>pn> I can certainly define situations where it *would* be in my best interest
>    to kill someone.  But Randianism claims that this is wrong.

>  Because Rand takes into account the context, as do all ethical systems. 

Actually, not all do.  Intrinsic theories of ethics (such as most religious
ethical systems) lay down contextless commandments (such as "Thou shalt not
kill.").  I think that the shoddiness of these intrinsic moral theories is
a major part of the reason why so many people reject the entire field of 
ethics are illogical or subjective.  They know what isn't right (the 
intrinsic/religious ethics), but they have no idea what to replace it with.

>  What
>  you're asking Rand to determine as good or bad is analogous to saying:

>  "A point mass on a frictionless surface... compute it's final position and 
>   velocity" 

>  without any initial conditions.

Great analogy!

>  You're saying "It's right for me to kill someone" without giving us the con-
>  text. Does this mean that ethics is contextual? Of course. Even science is.

In fact, ALL knowledge is.

--Brian

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5523 talk.politics.misc:64902
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:41:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec11.194515.2108@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>> >Please, note the word "initiation".  It implies that there is a context
>> >being taken into account.
>> 
>>    I know and that's why I say it's contextless.   Randianism doesn't
>>    say it's wrong to initiate force *in certain contexts*; it says
>>    its always wrong to initiate force.
>
>   Wrong. Peter, give it up. You are only showing who utterly 
>ignorant you are with respect to this subject. Try the concept 
>of self defense for starters.

  Try expressing a complete idea for starters.   *WHAT ABOUT* the
  "concept of self defense"? 

  Self defense is not initiation of force; it is dealing with something
  someone else has already initiated.    Rand has no problems with the
  use of force in that situation.   Have you actually read Rand or are
  you making this up as you go along?


---peter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5488 alt.politics.libertarian:2710
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:38:06 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand

>  [Peter creates a scenario in which he commits the perfect murder so he can
>   guarantee a healthy inheritance.]

>pn> Other than abstract ethical considerations, why shouldn't I carry it out?

>gs> Easy answer: You might get caught. I've yet to hear (or read) of a "per-
>    fect" murder.

>pn> Everything we do in life requires some assessment of the risks but in my
>    story I have assessed the risks and decided that they are small.

>  So, go for it. I have no way to tell you that murdering your aunt is wrong.
>  If you think you can get away with it, be my guest.

>  Now, can *you* tell us why I shouldn't murder *you*, if I think I can get
>  away with it? Even if there's no benefit to me? Eliminate Objectivism and
>  it's rule against initiation of force, and eliminate pragmatism (since I
>  cannot be caught), and upon what grounds do you use to object to being kil-
>  led?

Welcome to the philosophical study of ethics of the past
hundred years.  What do you think people like Moore have been
worrying about?  The point is that the strong claims made by
objectivism are unnecessary to resolve the problem; it merely
introduces complexity that confuses the issue.

>  Trust me, you can't toss out every ethical theory that has a flaw and expect
>  others to take you seriously. So far, I don't see how your postivistically
>  logical pragmatism keeps you from killing people. Perhaps we do need abstract
>  ethical considerations, hmmmm?

But what makes objectivist ones more appealing than others?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5436 talk.politics.misc:64065 alt.conspiracy:13108