Newsgroups: comp.object

In article ... objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:

[Re my reference to ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things'']

   I've read the book too.  It is discussing what I call mental worlds and not
   real worlds so your argument is not applicable.  Further discussion on the
   distinction (and my terminology, if you'll be so kind) will be Ok but please
   don't belabor the obvious.

Part of the book *explicitly* addresses the issue of whether the model of the
world it calls ``objectivist'' (that is, that there are objects ``out there''
with real ``properties'', and some of the consequences of this model, as
traditionally presented) is appropriate, and says ``no, it is not''. This is,
if you recall, where we came in.

If you wish to continue asserting that objects are ``real'', properties are
``real'' (in the sense that they belong to the world, and not to our
descriptions), and that WFaDT is not applicable, then I suggest that you
demonstrate either that the books arguments are flawed, or that you do not in
fact belong to the objectivist tradition.

Doing so will make your position clearer to those of us who are, as you have so
precisely put it, ``confused''.


 >   ....................................................  This means the
 >   object-oriented constructs are simply used to simulate and model the
 >   real-world.  For example, the "world" will enforce an equal and opposite
 >   reaction whenever an object undergoes some force in the world model.
 >
 >Isn't this use of a ``world'' a violation of the object-oriented model you
 >propose? 

   Absolutely not.  It is a perfect use of object-oriented technology as I've
   already given you many examples and explanations of.

If that's your idea of perfection in an object model -- resolve difficulties by
having an additional object which handles all the things that local objects
can't handle -- then you and I have remarkably different notions of perfection,
object models, and what constitues a ``natural model'' of the world -- again,
if you recall, this being where we came in.

   Please stop trying to discuss these subjects, they are an interest of mine
   and I'm beginning to think that you discuss these subjects with no 
   background or tenability and you should leave these specific subjects to 
   people who do.  

Let me be blunt. You have given me no evidence that you have any more
background or tenability on this issue than I do. You have no evidence that
this subject is not an interest of mine -- I would have thought the contrary,
in fact, since I have posted more than 1500 lines on this topic. I am still
learning the subject; since it has taken many generations of philosophers their
entire lifetimes to get us where we are today, and I have many other interests
to handle (such as eating), I feel no shame that I don't know all the answers.
To post arguments to a public forum, such as this one, is to invite responses;
you cannot expect people to stop criticising you just because you ask.

I agree it can be irritating when those who clearly know nothing keep pestering
one with inane, unsupported suggestions; when they clearly haven't read the
relevant literature; when they keep changing their position without saying why;
when they think that assertions are arguments. 

When that happens, one has two choices. One is to shut up and go to other
routes to publicise ones ideas: conferences, (reffereed) papers, books. The
other is to give names of standard works, suggest what problems are being
attacked, make sure one's own position is clear, acknowledge weaknesses and
explain how they are being addressed, and to treat the other disputants as
rational human beings who have something to say. 

   I'm not meaning to be overbearing, but we've covered all of this already.

Coverage does not imply successful analysis, nor resolution.
--

Regards | "Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be
Kers.   | a violent psychopath who knows where you live." - John F. Woods
Newsgroups: comp.object