HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:49 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson

pn> A prerequisite for "doing what's best in the long run" is being able to
    predict what long-term effects your actions will have. I challenge you
    to prove that you can make such predictions accurately.

  Try looking at it this way -- all fields, science included, suffer from
  the lack of omniscience that all humans have. However, just because you
  cannot tell me *exactly* what the weather is going to be in New York City
  on July 4, 1993, does not mean science is useless. Likewise, just because
  I cannot predict *exactly* what the effects of an ethical system based on
  individual rights and rational humans are going to be does not mean it's
  useless. 

  Since science has an "out" with chaos theory, and ultimately, the HUP, why
  can't ethical systems have a similar "out"? 

  Besides, why all the emphasis on *prediction*? Why not use historical anal-
  ysis instead, or in addition to, prediction? It's obvious that the ethical
  system (such as it was) of the Soviet Union was a horrendous failure, so
  that's one data point we can use.

  If you're looking for some grand formula that you can use to predict the
  behavior of whole societies, you won't ever find it. Similarly, if you're
  looking for some grand formula to predict the weather at any given place
  at any given time, you won't ever find it. 

--
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,soc.history,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 11:04:40 EST

In article <1992Nov20.060627.26882@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>Note that nowhere in my original posting did I state my opinion on
>>the right to keep and bear arms. 
>
>Nor did he say anything about your personal opinions on the subject:
>Your statement of the ACLU's position was incorrect (or, at least, 
>misleading) and you claimed there were no relevant Supreme Court
>rulings on the subject (which you apparently knew was not the case.)

I don't have the original post, but I don't recall his statement being
that strong.  I recall him saying something more like "The SC has not
provided a clear interpretation."

In any case, at the time I read that post, I thought he was summarizing
SC precedent quite reasonably.



>The ACLU's position
>is essentially that the Second Amendment only protects "select
>militias", that is the chosen, if part-time, agents of the
>government. It is absurd to claim the Amendment protects
>the government's ability to arm it's own agents.

Come now, Frank, let's not start with misleading rhetoric.  Without taking
any position on what the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is,
it is pretty easy to disprove your claim of absurdity.

The Bill of Rights embodies not only protections of individual rights,
but also protections of *state* rights.  As you well know, the entire
argument over the interpretation of the Second Amendment is essentially
one of whether it protects only *state* rights, or whether it also
protects *individual* rights.

It is hardly "absurd" to suggest that an amendment to the *federal*
Constitution might protect only the *state* governments' ability to arm their
own agents (though, it may be incorrect to so suggest...).


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.history,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:18:46 GMT

In article <By0ppn.59F@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}In article <1992Nov20.083822.27475@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <Bxz04G.LyL@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}>}>If it's impossible to apply the methods of the natural sciences, as Hayek
}>}>and many others have argued, then this indeed mean that they don't work.
}>}
}>}  Are you saying *it's impossible* to round up thousands of newborn
}>}  babies and divide them into study and control groups and perform
}>}  experiments of their personality or social development
}>
}>No, I'm denying that any factor, X, could be proven to necessarily cause
}>behavior, Y, because of the fact that humans are volitional, another thing
}>you deny, not only making you a positivist but a believer in psychological
}>determinism.
}
}  This is a nonsequitor.

Translation: Peter can't follow it.  Suppose you conduct the "experiment"
you propose, and you observe that some of them exhibit behavior X.  How can
you determine what caused it?  How can you control for volition?  How can
you then formulate a hypothesis of: If X, then babies behave Y?

}>Lets review: you claimed that positivism's never been tried in economics.
}
}  Really?  Quote the posting in question.

Please!  I don't save your posts, and I'm certainly not going to search for
the quote you made.  It was bad enough reading you the first time.  I don't
care about persuading you anymore.  You're bloody hopeless.  I just want to
ensure that innocents won't be suckered into taking your claims seriously.

}>Quantitative prediction is outside the scope of economics.  However, history
}>combined with the theory of human action does lead to the prediction that
}>we'll be looking at double-digit price inflation within a few years.
}
}  Except that any of a number of models make the same prediction.   And
}  all of them are predicated on the same assumption: that the national
}  debt will be monetized.  If the assumption holds true then the prediction
}  is trivial, and no more validates the Austrian school than predicting
}  a sudden decline in the deer population on a tiny island following the 
}  detonation of a thermonuclear device on it, would validate some ecological
}  theory. 

Like which "models"?  How are they distinct from praxaeology?  Since when is
there a standard in your proposal from which to obtain such a measurement as
"trivial".  What's your metric?  How is triviality quantified?

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." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Rand and Everyone Else (was: Re: Nelson and Me)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:11:32 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
| }First, we should recognize that it is possible to have knowledge
| }of particular things in reality, without even having a formal 
| }definition.  The role of definitions is epistemological clarification.
| }Do you know what a table is?  Can you identify ordinary dogs?
| }Do you have a formal definition of either?

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
| An even better example is the shape of a holly bush.  This can be readily
| identified, but defined quantitatively?  Not that I know of.

If there is no formal definition of it, it can't be formally
identified.  It can be _informally_ identified, and the
informal identification can be wrong, as long as there are
enough right identifications to (pragmatically) serve
whatever purpose identification furthers.  However, one
could not do extensive reasoning about the alleged holly
bush, and depend on the answer, since it might not be a
holly bush after all.  At least, _I_ would not trust
such reasoning.

The reason academic philosophy is so concerned with such
things is that academic philosophers are pros, they're
big-leaguers, and they play hardball with one another's
ideas.  In the 20th century, this has generally come 
down to strategems like elaborate and detailed attention
to grammar, or the construction of complex and difficult
ideas with novel vocabularies which cannot be easily
understood, much less criticized.  Rand simply elected
not to play this game, and I don't think there's much
hope of doctoring up her theories post-facto to get
them in the league.  And there is no need to; as I said,
they function quite well in their sphere of provenience.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:45:08 GMT

In article <By0r5y.6r9@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}In article <1992Nov20.093014.28745@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <Bxx5nq.8AI@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}>}  I don't see that ethical systems have any such track record --
}>}  that is I don't see any evidence that an ethical system can 
}>}  predict in advance the outcome of some choice -- at least not
}>}  in a way which distinguishes it from competing ethical systems.
}>
}>See the recently published book "Who Prospers?" by Lawrence Harrison.  In it
}>he goes into explaining the economic success of societies because of their
}>cultural values.  Specifically, he details how cultures which share values
}>that I'd argue are Objectivist prosper over others.
}
}  There ARE no Objectivist societies.

Actually, there is an Objectivist Society at Brown University, but this
probably isn't what you meant.  You did completely miss my point, however,
which was that there is indeed evidence that Objectivist values explain
the economic success of a culture.  The ignorance you professed wasn't
restricted to Objectivism, however, but included any ethical systems, so
the evidence I cited refutes your claim regardless of whether or not the
values are Objectivist or not.

It's so amusing how you never admit your ignorance when accused of it by
others, with references, but only in rhetorical prefaces to criticisms of
those selfsame others.

}  "Never be able to predict the weather?  Are you saying that the preditions
}  of the National Weather Service for tomorrow bear no more than a random chance
}  relationship to the actual weather tomorrow?    

I'm not sure what you mean.  I'm not the expert on this, my friend is.

}> Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
}
}  No, you just can't read.  What I said is that our ability to predict the
}  weather 24 hours from now is better now than it was in 1967, and that
}  was better than in 1942.   And this is verifiably true.

And I reported that this is contrary to my understanding, especially if we
restrict weather prediction to the quantitative precision you so dearly love.

   All chaos theory says on the subject is that tiny perturbations
}  percolate up and don't disappear in the noise.   The result is that 
}  long term forecasting is much more difficult than anyone imagined
}  a few decades ago.              

Impossible is what reader's of Gleick's "Chaos" tell me.  Not just hard, but
literally impossible.


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." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jcc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeremy Caplan)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:56:59 GMT

Peter, the differences between humans and animals is that humans MUST use
their mind to survive.  If you don't understand rationality, I will define it
for you:

rational: of, based on, or derived from reasoning.  Abile to reason.

reasoning and logic is something only humans can use.

Jer

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Nelson and Me
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:02:15 GMT

In article <By1EB9.GoK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>Well, I'm about done.
>
>There gets to be a point beyond which continued discussion becomes
>pointless.  I think that I've proven my case beyond any reasonable
>doubt.  I will just finish with a couple of interesting thoughts.
>

Welcome to the club--I grew impatient of this thread a while ago when I
started it...

>But the careful reader will see that, for the most part, Nelson's
>postings are deliberate (or else shockingly dense!) misinterpretations
>of what I have said.

No, shockingly dense is correct.  Mr. Nelson has not understood anything
you've said, anything I've said, or anything Ayn Rand has ever said.  It is
clear that only thing he DOES understand is abject hatred for the
ideas of Ayn Rand (this really comes out when he starts using words like
"sophmoric", etc.).

Mr. Nelson does not have the abstract thought capability to understand the
ideas of Ayn Rand.  Don't be fooled by a semi-coherent argument against
reason: it is much easier to tear something down than it is to
build something up.  To keep from getting _too_ cynical, just keep in mind
that people who deny reason and cannot think abstractly are never going to
get anywhere...

>Peter is fond of saying that 'saying it doesn't make it so'.
>So I'll turn that phrase back at him.  Peter, just saying it
>doesn't make it so.  It is your turn to make your case.

Peter won't make "his case", because he has no case of his own.  Having 
your own case of concept formation requires a mind capable of more abstract
thinking.

>
>I don't really plan to respond to Peter anymore on this topic.
>But I really want to encourage anyone who has been 'on the
>sidelines' to ask me any questions.  My sincere desire is to
>explain my position and make myself understood.  If there is
>anything I can do to further that goal, please let me know.
>
>
You've done an excellent job of explaining, and I think the 'audience'--if
there is one, might have understood.  It's important to note that it is 
very important they _you_ understand, and that arguing here on Usenet is
a form of intellectual mind sharpening...

>--Jimbo
>

__________
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:05:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <37647@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <BxM015.B7J@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>>  When you look at social systems, which promote the lives of the
>>>  citizens?  Fascism? Monarchy?  Socialism?  Military dictatorship?
>>>  or Capitalist Republics?
>>
>>    But all you're doing is building the argument for pragmatism, and
>>    Rand hated pragmatism.  
>>
>
>I belive this shows you know less about Rand's ideas than you claim.
>The pragmatism that Rand hated was the short-sighted "do whatever works
>for the short run, don't think about the consequences, don't think
>long term, just act now" type of attitude. I pointed out here on
>the net last week (I don't know if it made it) that von Mises was
>a fierce advocate of capitalism because he knew that it worked best.
>However, because he held this belief, he became a very *principled* man,
>unyielding and uncompromising in his espousal of capitalism. What von
>Mises advocated was *long-term* pragmatism--what works best in the long run
>for the largest amount of people.

  The flaw in this is that if you can predict the long-term behavior
  of social systems you could be the richest man in the world and
  not have to major in computers in college as rich, or whatever you
  do.   

  A prerequisite for "doing what's best in the long run" is being 
  able to predict what long-term effects your actions will have.
  I challenge you to prove that you can make such predictions
  accurately.


>The basis for deciding which ethical premise is better is its effect
>on all individuals in the long run.

  Prove this, and prove that you can predict the long run.


---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:01:18 GMT


Peter Nelson writes:
>>}  This is a nonsequitor.

Tim Starr responds:
>>Translation: Peter can't follow it.

Peter repeats:
>  It's a nonsequitor because determinism is not the only alternative 
>  to free will.  I.e., the universe has nondetermistic events. 

Peter: the Latin term you are groping for is 'non sequitur'.
Note that this is TWO words, the second ending with 'ur'.

The Objectivist position on free will is elaborated in a recent
article by Harry Binswanger, "Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation"
in _Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes_, December
1991.

Unless I've misinterpreted either Randall Holmes or the Objectivist
theory, then Randall's explanation of free will (in which free will
is not inconsistent with which might be called 'deterministic
causality') as epistemological is the Objectivist view.  In any case,
I agree with Randall's view.

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:26:06 GMT

In article <BxGCxI.tx@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>  [...]
>  I believe Randiansim is based on 
>  some variation of Aristotelianism. 
>  [...]

Hark!  It's the muffled sound of somebody talking through their hat!

________
Steve Thomas
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:45:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.234722.11624@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Jeremy Caplan wrote:
>| > Peter, the differences between humans and animals is that humans MUST use
>| > their mind to survive.

>esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>| Even this is arguable.  Ever heard of feral children?

>Feral children have minds.  So, as far as I can see, do
>dogs and cats.  Possibly use of languages exhibiting
>a certain level of syntax is meant?  The way in which
>humans use language to survive seems unique among the
>species we are familiar with.  

I think hte point here is that you never hear of "feral adults".  Perhaps
this is because Jeremy was right.  Such people either learn to reaon
or they die very young.

--Brian
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5086 talk.philosophy.misc:2564 rec.arts.books:20499
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:39:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory

Tim Starr writes:


>Yet this is patently false for other sciences such as biology or economics,
>as we've shown.  They remain verifiable sans quantitative measurement.

I see little evidence of any verification of economics, which, incidentally,
is eminently quantitative.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:41:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov21.100624.26270@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Yet this is patently false for other sciences such as biology or economics,
>as we've shown.  They remain verifiable sans quantitative measurement.

  Shows what Mr. Starr knows about biology -- modern biology is based 
  on chemistry and physics.  You won't see too many biology papers published
  in peer-reviewd journals that don't have "quantitative verification".
 
  As for economics -- this is hilarious.  Since when is economics a
  "science"?   Economics is about as scientific as art appreciation!


 
>}  If you don't define your terms precisely then how do you know whether 
>}  what Rand says has anything to do with reality?
>
>Precision is distinct from quantitative measurement.

  Not in the sciences it isn't.   How do you specify HOW precise
  your model is without using a number?


>}  If  Rand (or Starr or Wales) makes the claim
>}  that "man is rational", in the lack of a metric for rationality, 
>}  how do you propose this claim be verified?
>
>Introspect to see if you behave purposively;

  Ahh, "introspection".  Like, "look into your heart and see if Jesus
  isn't really there".    Right.  Real rigorous.   If I introspect
  about Ralph Von William's music I find it to be beautiful and 
  moving.   So I guess that proves it!   Clearly al those other
  people who think it's auditory wallpaper just didn't introspect
  hard enough!


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:25:37 GMT

Peter Nelson writes:
>  Logic does not represent a set of scientific *conclusions* so it doesn't
>  HAVE to be.   The "rules" that we call logic (i.e., the axioms and
>  methods of deriving theorems) are (to be tautological) "axiomatic".
>  I.e., we have already agreed upon them as a practical matter.  You'll
>  notice that even Rand hardly ever violates them (except with "a=a"
>  which is unabashedly tautological and which any decent optimizing
>  compiler would optimize out of existence).   We are not discussing
>  whether logic is valid, we are discussing whether Rand is logical.

I think that we should all interpret this last sentence as a
description of intension on the part of Peter Nelson.  We can
reasonably assume that he _intends_ to be talking about whether
or not Rand is logical.

Unfortunately, his words tell a different story.  I find the previous
paragraph to be, for the most part, a telling confession on Peter's
part that he understands neither Rand nor logic nor the foundations
of scientific knowledge nor...  I could go on and on.

What Peter winds up discussing, ad infinitum, is his own ignorance.

--Jimbo


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books