Talk:Science of value

message: Dr. Marvin Katz, we do not sign Wikipedia articles. We thank you for your contributions.  I assume you were not attempting self-promotion, but please let's be clear: this site is a collective body of work, not a means of self-promotion or to promote concepts or companies or other people. We strive hard for a neutral point of view (NPoV). Hu 08:14, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
I doubt if I and Simplebrain are going to see eye to eye, but I've restored a lot of what he had written, so we now have an exposition of how this so-called axiom is supposed to work, and more significantly, what it actually means if you strip it of its attempts to mathematize. Gene Ward Smith 22:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  old history 

message: The state of the page at 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC) (Gene Ward's last edit about 90 minutes ago) seems to be a great improvement over what came before.  If Simplebrain would like to add a section which is a more positive evaluation, he is free to do so, and have it subjected to review by the whole Wikipedia community, as is everything else.  But I hope that what appears on the page as of this writing will be the basic foundation of the page. Hu 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
:I just came upon this page from Recent Changes, and yes, this version looks good(and less POV ridden) to me, although shorter paragraphs would help. ;-) JesseW 06:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page at 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC) 

message: "A DVD remote control which has too many button on it" is a concept that a value scientist would categorize as a Transposition of Value. This concept has a cardinality symbolize by: V"-V". It's value, algebraicly, is: 1 over V-to-the-V, or a mere fraction of value. The words "too many" indicate to the analyst a disvalue. You read about this in THE STRUCTURE book, I'm sure. A disvaluation is taking place in the very act of naming this remote control. Verbal disvalues are translated into the Algebra of Value, and into the value calculus as transpositions. Hartman explained this in careful detail in his paper, "The Measurement of Value," and later incorporated it into his magnum opus. So while you were using that illustration to make a point about enrichment of value, we in this discipline interpret it as a fragmented value, worth little, confirming within the theory -- and its rules of interpretation -- the same conclusion you reached about it independently, via observation. 
 
I'd very much appreciate a response from you on these points. 
By the way, in my book, TRENDS TOWARD SYNTHESIS: The Moral Philosophy of Robert S. Hartman I had the identical critique you have in the article in re those formulas resulting from adding and multiplying fair, bad, good, etc. To this date they are inutile and make no sense. However, to be fair, Reiman and Lobachevsky's geometries were around for years before Einstein made use of them, as was the Tensor Calculus. Hartman's output may some day be interpreted in a meaningful way. It is a fallacy of logic to leap to conclusions about their "never" being used, and thus are "nonsense." "Never" is not a scientific attitude. And is it right to find one or two flaws in a long book and then smear the entire work with a brush?  
* Hartman spends a great deal of time on his formulas, which are hardly anything so sophisticated as tensors (not "Lorenz Tensor Calculus", please!) Since it clearly makes no sense to do what he did, it is hardly the case that one of these days we are going to see how wonderful it all was. Gene Ward Smith
Of course he is not being taught in conventional philosophy courses on philosophical axiology! That doesn't surprise me. New paradigms face the history of first being rejected as "weird," then becoming so very standard and conventional, and finally, everyone claims that they thought of it first. Thomas Jefferson ridiculed the idea of the Eirie Canal ever being built, and I'm sure you can supply no end of other examples of people who scoffed at what later was commonplace. So why is that part of your evaluation in the article? 
* That philosphers aren't taking him seriously is relevant to Hartman for the same reason it is relevant to, for example, Objectivism. What people in the field think is relevant. Gene Ward Smith
And does it make any sense to you now as to why a 'Dear John Letter' situation is worth less than the 'taking literally' what was meant to be a metaphor? 
Isn't he at all be be commended for the breakthrough definition of "good" as being a quantifier of qualities, in the sense that "all" and "some" are quantifiers?  
* Hartman could be credited with a breakthrough if he had, in fact, made one. However almost no one claims that he has; that you hold a very much minority view entitles you to say "A few people beleive Hartman made a breakthrough of great value", but not to say "Hartman made a breakthrough of great value." The latter, not being remotely close to a generally accepted fact, is not NPOV. In other words, "Einstein made a breakthrough of great value" is acceptable, since this is a consensus view of physicists, but any claim like this about Hartman is not a consensus view, and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia with aspirations to be NPOV. Gene Ward Smith 06:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disvaluation and some other comments