HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 19 Nov 1992 10:51:13 EST
From: <GREESE@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Chaos and causelessness
 <1992Nov4.013138.13097@wixer.cactus.org>
 <1992Nov16.092437.1@woods.ulowell.edu>

First, randomness is not the same thing as acausality.  Having no
cause means just that, the event had no prior event which can be named
as a cause.  With randomness, as in quantum theory, we can name a probable caus
e o
cause of any quantum level event.  They are random, but not at all
acausal events.
Do I actually believe this? No, but then again I don't believe quantum
events are random.  But if you believe quantum events to be random, then
you are stuck with this.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: what can't be verified/falsified in
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:52:53 GMT

In article <10292320.14832.21064@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz 
(Hakki Kocabas) writes:

   >Oh Bogey's Messenger Russell ! tell us the truth ! for Bogey's sake !  

Actually Wittgenstein would never have made the bizarre mistake of
assuming that Russell held that "what cannot be verified or falsified
is meaningless". Imitating Wittgenstein's style is all well and good,
but why not pay some attention to the issues as well?
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Rights
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:16:38 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <Bxy5sx.Dw4@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.092859.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> >No one is born with inherient rights.  Rights are given solely by the
|> >government.

This is, of course, just an expression of a certain ideology.  In
fact, I think it reflects a fundamental difference in perspective
between so-called "liberals" and so-called "conservatives" (at least
in the U.S.).  This cleaves along the lines of:

	Rights are given to the people by the government (which
	retains any rights not explicitly so given).

	Rights are given (or "given up" is probably better, ala
	Hobbes, Locke, et al.) by the people to the government,
	and any rights not so explicitly given up are retained
	by the people.

Phrases such as "We the people ..." in our (U.S) fundamental documents
generally are taken as an expression of the second view.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Platos views etc etc
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:25:00 +0000

maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes...

[...].
>One would only have to BE part of the half of the human race that was
>shut out....one would ony have to have been a woman and have gone
>through elementary school and junior high school and high school and
>most of college seeing no faces of women and hearing no words of
>women... before the resurgence of the feminist movement in the 1970s
>brought women back into history again.

Good grief. My childhood and schooling in the 50's and sixties seems
to have resounded with words of women. I think there was, in fact,
only one man - a headmaster - in my first school. (Come to think of
it, women were a little in short supply in the second).

But I seem to recall as many female 'cult figures' as male. Joan of
Arc, Boudicca, Annie Oakley, Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale, Quenn
Lizzy the first, All those impressive Victorian novel writers.
Cleopatra. Salome.

It sounds like you had a pretty weird upbringing: Shouldn't you be
coming to terms with it rather than projecting out over all history?

:-)

Speaking of Plato, I was at Georgetown University when Bill Clinton
was there, and I had the interesting experience there of having an
instructor, a Christian Brother, exclude me, as the only woman in
the philosophy class, from two lectures that discussed Plato.
Presumably because he was uncomfortable discussing Plato in front of
me.  I could have complained to the dean, but this was pre-feminist-
consciousness, so I didn't complain, I just let this be part of what
convinced me to quit school. 

Valerie Maslak



Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Rights
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:03:17 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <By0u27.590@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>I do not believe that people who discuss things on NPR are in the mainstream
>of anything except NPR.

If you put a random selection of congressmen, law professors, Clinton
advisors, CBS news staffers and members of the editorial board of the
_New York Times_ in a room and asked them what they thought about
political extremists, would they start talking about the bizarros at
NPR?  (This is getting horribly off-topic and it's not as funny as
Wittgenstein, P.I., but I'm intrigued by the topic.)
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:51:19 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Nov12.092616.432@news.wesleyan.edu>, RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:

|> Are you quite sure that it was, as you say, because it was felt that their
|> *political views* were of the "wrong" sort, or was it perhaps because they
|> lacked the *academic credentials* to teach & conduct research in women's
|> studies, which was, perhaps, part of the position description?

Quite sure.  Despite your personal disavowel of such considerations, political
orientation appears to be a *major* factor in the hiring of philosophers (and
other academics) for positions in "women's studies".  Of course, I also know
one male philosopher who actually landed a position by *posing* as a Marxist.
(He really was a libertarian who was quite expert in Marx -- but it was
clear to him that mere expertise was not enough.)  However, the situation
in women's studies seems to rather more the rule than the exception.

|> I know of very few professional philosophers who disagree that women's studies
|> ought to qualify as an academic field at all *AND* have the credentials to
|> teach women's studies courses from an "opposing viewpoint" (Christina Hoff
|> Sommers is one, but I know of few others).  CHS actually has spent a
|> considerable amount of time READING the feminist phil literature, & thus
|> (though I disagree with her) I acknowledge her ability to offer *informed*
|> opposing viewpoints.

The repeated suggestion that a number of us are unqualified to offer observations
and arguments concerning feminist philosophy because we have not read any is
getting pretty tired at this point.  It should be obvious that we *have*
read contributions in the area (please recall that it was *I* who originally
suggested the APA Newsletter as a source of representative writings).
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Platos views on women
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:29:19 GMT

In article <BxyvvE.C41@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <memo.758259@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
>
>|> Agreed. Also agreed that the trauma of bereavement, of childbirth, of
>|> war, of almost any major key experience of an individual gives deep
>|> philosophical insight.
>
>I am not, on the basis of my own personal experience, prepared to concede
>this.  Perhaps this is because I'm not at all sure what "deep philospohical
>insight" is.  However, having suffered a few experiences that count
>as traumatic, I have never attained from them anything I would regard
>in any way as deep philosophical insight.  I think that whatever
>deep philosophical insight is, it results from deep and rather intense
>*study* rather than from an emotional reaction to experience.
>-- 

I'll second that.  "Deep philosophical insight" _could_ arise out of
personal suffering, but not unless the suffering inspired the sufferer
to do the thinking required to arrive at the insight (which could have
been done by someone motivated in a different way as well).  Mere
suffering does not confer knowledge of anything.

>Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
>SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
>sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Platos views on women
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:56:00 +0000

I am falling behind with Usenet :-)

isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes...

[..]
>And real, hands-on experience--as opposed to simple theoretical
>understanding--should not be underestimated.  I think being pulled
>over by a police officer and beaten near to death by a flashlight
>provides a "deep philosophical insight" as it were that might not be
>arrived at by other more cerebral means.

Agreed. Also agreed that the trauma of bereavement, of childbirth, of
war, of almost any major key experience of an individual gives deep
philosophical insight.

But, with all due respect, I do not think that that is the point at
issue. The point at issue is not whether women have something valid
to offer philosophy per se, but whether the fact that they (patently)
do justifies segregating philosophy on sexual lines. I.e. into
'feminist' and 'non-feminist' philosophy.

Of course if you define 'feminist philosophy' as 'how to come to
terms with being female' or some such, then I suppose you could make
a case for it. But that is very much philosophy with a small 'p'.

I would regard that with the same irritation that I regard the term
'social science' - a valid and interesting field of study, but
unfortunately one that IMHO should not be given the label of
'science'.

To criticise anything that carries the label 'feminist' lays one open
to an emotive attack based on th implication that one is at the very
least a latent sexist. That may be so, but remember - without
discrimination there is no form at all. I will freely admit to
discriminating on the basis of every single category that I am aware
of - sex, race, colour, time, space, taste, sound.....that is the
world we live in n'est ce pas? :-)

The whole purpose of our rational minds is to replace reaction to
experience with reaction to recognised patterns laid down by our
experience and our teaching. That is pure discrimination, and pure
prejudice.

I think those that preach and 'end to prejudice and discrimination'
could well take some lessons in general philosophy, where they might
come to realise that discrimination and prejudice are in fact what
rationality is all about.

What is really the point, is to MODIFY existing responses to more
appropriate ones. But this is, IMHO, not a philosophical issue: It is
an issue of social politics.

So my response is: To those who support the rather offensive term of
'feminist philosophy' with its implied sexist overtones, what
concepts does this philosophy embody that cannot be encompassed by
the generic Philosophy?

We have had the usual response - 'try studying it for 20 years like I
have and then you are fit to criticise' - no thanks. I've had enougfh
of that from standard philosophers.

All I have seen to date (and I admit I am about a week late here) is
the usual emotive garbage about 'repression and oppression'.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 23 Nov 1992 18:06:50 CST
From: <U53846@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Abortion

Hi, would some body please help me for my paper please......
Here is my topic:  Suppose you find out that you are pregnant and there is a 50
-50 chance that due to a genetic defect, your child may be psychologically
disposed to become a sociopath, do you choose to have an abortion?
Males please be little more creative :)  I really need some help on it.  Thanks
and I'm really appreciate any ideas.........

                                                 John
From: ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Wittgenstein, P.I.
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:49:15 GMT
	<Bxnwzo.L63@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Nov17.125404.4312@eff.org>
Organization: GRAMMA

In article <1992Nov17.125404.4312@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org 
(Mike Godwin) writes:


   In article <Bxnwzo.L63@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:

   >It was a dark and stormy night.
   >
   >So said the scrap of paper that the madman pressed into his hand.
   >
   >Is there no escape from the Law?

   For Wittgenstein, P.I., the world is all that is the case.

(That was maybe more connected with the earlier work by W.)

No it was rather Godel himself that at some time in the
thirties perhaps thought that there is no escape from the L(aw)
but from the intuition that the universe is very large 
followed that some inhabitants have escaped the Law.


best regards  Anders
--


If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam Costello)
Subject: RF more D: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Followup-To: news.groups,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,alt.individualism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Keywords: Objectivism moderate
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:47:14 GMT

I recently propsed the newsgroup

    talk.philosophy.objectivism
    unmoderated
    For the discussion of all topics related to Objectivism.

I have since learned of many people who favor the creation of the group,
and a few who oppose it.  The latter are opposed not to the group per
se, but to its unmoderated status.  These few claim to be able to rally
many no-votes, and I have reason to believe them.

I personally would prefer an unmoderated group, but to me it's more
important that there be a group at all.  Therefore, I am willing to
consider changing the proposal to one for a moderated group.  What do
others think about this?

If a moderated group were created, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> would be
willing to serve as moderator.  He is currently moderator of the
objectivism@vix.com mailing list.

AMC
amc@cics.wustl.edu
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Rights
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <Bxyvnq.Bsz@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary
Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> In article <Bxy5sx.Dw4@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us
(Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Nov16.092859.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> |> >No one is born with inherient rights.  Rights are given solely by the
|> |> >government.
|> 
|> This is, of course, just an expression of a certain ideology.  In
|> fact, I think it reflects a fundamental difference in perspective
|> between so-called "liberals" and so-called "conservatives" (at least
|> in the U.S.).  This cleaves along the lines of:
|> 
|> 	Rights are given to the people by the government (which
|> 	retains any rights not explicitly so given).
|> 
|> 	Rights are given (or "given up" is probably better, ala
|> 	Hobbes, Locke, et al.) by the people to the government,
|> 	and any rights not so explicitly given up are retained
|> 	by the people.
|> 
|> Phrases such as "We the people ..." in our (U.S) fundamental documents
|> generally are taken as an expression of the second view.
|> -- 

The framers themselves noted that they believed the rights to be
"inherent" , endowed by the creator.  Naturally, that doesn't make it so,
but it does lessen the ambiguity over the "source" of rights as recognized
in the constitution.

One could argue that the evolution of man indicates that it might not be
possible to suppress human rights universally and indefinitely, and that
social systems are eventually forced to recognize them.  This might suggest
that the underlying energy behind these rights is ultimately indomitable.

Paul Collacchi



Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hilary Putnam
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:59:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <-1363721126snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

>           but my own enquiry is rather concerned here with the
>matter of why would science want to be concerned with constructing
>a world picture at all?

  This is a bit like asking why you would use a hammer to strike
  nails.   Science is a tool, a methodology, that's all.  You're
  certainly not required to accept its underlying epistemology
  of logical empiricism.   

  Science attempts to construct conceptual, theoretical models
  of the world by comparing these models to to the world via
  tests and experiments and feeding the results back into the
  models in order to refine them.   This has proven to be a
  very effective method of improving such models -- far more
  so than the Aristotelian method of merely regarding the 
  world and cogitating over it.  And such models are often
  either useful (e.g., building bridges, bombs, computers, anti-
  biotics, etc), or simply interesting (e.g., cosmology).

  But if having rigorous theoretical models is not useful/inter-
  esting, then science certainly isn't necessary, any more than if
  you don't need to bang nails (and let's face it, Australian
  aboriginals and plenty of other cultures have done just fine,
  thank you, without nails) then hammers are not necessary.



>Aboriginal people have often asked me the question, "What are all
>these white people so worried about all the time? Don't they know
>anything yet?", to which I have yet to think of a good answer.

  Maybe this is because you accept their characterization of
  white people as "worried" too readily.  I'm not worried and 
  even when I'm aware of various risks or threats and try to 
  assess, prepare for, or deal with them, I don't usually
  worry about them.   


>The people here do not seem to think there is any problem with their
>own world picture, and so spend no time arguing over such questions
>like white people do.

  Although I can't speak specifically about Australian aboriginals,
  most people in primitive hunting cultures, however skilled they are,
  are not usually able to make a perfectly straight line for their
  prey.   Tracking prey, (or following an animal already wounded in
  the initial encounter) which can often take days, is a series of
  successive approximations, with various mid-course corrections, 
  picking up new clues and eventually, if they're lucky, resulting
  in a successful hunt.   Unsuccessful hunts are/were not uncommon.

  Does this mean that there's anything "wrong" with their world
  picture?  No.  Error, refinement, etc is in the nature of the
  activity (hunting or science).  Forming a theory which doesn't
  quite work and having to refine it and try again is no different
  than shooting an arrow at some game, missing, and trying again,
  after (hopefully) correcting what went wrong the first time.


---peter





Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: turgd00@DMI.USherb.CA (DAVID TURGEON)
Subject: Re: Gopher Anthro information server
Organization: Universite de Sherbrooke -- Dept. d'Informatique
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:07:17 GMT

In an article, dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) writes:

>If I were to speak to someone about a gopher, I would be talking about
>what, exactly?
>
>Druta Karma>


Well in real life, you would be talking about some employee that "gets" stuff
for you  ie: GO FOR this, GO FOR that ... thus the name GO PHER. IE: mostly
used in showbuisness. Elton John's Gopher died while on an errand for him in a
traffic accident while getting cigarettes. So Elton wrote a song for him, it's
called  A song for GUY. (Very nice)


Ok, now for the real stuff, on a computer system, a gopher is an Information
service, available locally or internationally.

Just typing GOPHER will give you the local one....from that one, you may have
the possibility to "reach out" to other gophers. If not, you can try :
gopher (site)   Mine would be:   gopher tohi.dmi.usherb.ca  and you would
get my site, and from there, there is an option for The rest of the world.

See Y'a,

David
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: William Irwin Thompson
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 01:58:32 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <2206@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc writes:

 > Who is "we" in this context?

We are people working in this specialist field, where I have posted
my discussion only to our own specialist news.group. Who are you?
Another computer programmer, or commercial lurker or somebody?

 > And how does the Falklands War fit into this thesis?  As I recall, my
 > country was led by a woman at the time.

My paragraph was on social gender roles, not biological sex roles, and
the sentence to which you refer specifically began, "Thatcher on the
Falklands . . . "

Why would you ask a question from its answer already given? What an
odd, back to front, Queen of Hearts way of thinking about things.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Hilary Putnam
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:34:32 GMT

In article <By6vqx.BMu@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  This is a bit like asking why you would use a hammer to strike
>  nails.   Science is a tool, a methodology, that's all.  You're
>  certainly not required to accept its underlying epistemology
>  of logical empiricism.   

No one has been a logical empiricist for 30 years! Sounds like you've been
reading too much continental critique, and pretty old critique at that.

>

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: don@helix.nih.gov (donald seto)
Subject: Re: Kirsten Anderson
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Distribution: sci.anthropology
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:22:47 GMT

In article <9918@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> pjhst10+@pitt.edu (Peter   J Hill) writes:
>I am trying to find the current snail mail address of a friend from High
>School Who went into Archeology.  (I know that there is a difference, but
>there is no Archeology news group)  If anyonw knows her, I would appreciate

you mean..sci.archaeology?  it's an option on my netnews!
.

--
don@helix.nih.gov
301-402-0580   Bldg10/Rm8D14    NIDDK/NIH       Bethesda, MD  20892
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,alt.appalachian,alt.peace-corps