Paul's Here

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul's Here

  1. It would also be nice if you answered my questions in my posts above.
  2. Citing a source means offering a quote that supports your claim. It means show me where you got your information/interpretation. Giving me a chapter to read does not support your specific statements.
  3. And what information in that section supports your statements? Can you offer quotations alongside your statements so that I may compare them?
  4. It would be nice if you would cite your sources for this summary of Peikoff's position. I'm don't think the above is an accurate summary. What does "judge by the weight of the evidence" mean and what does it refer to? What are you judging? What is being compromised? Why are the only choices "knowledge or irrationality"? What about error? "Either you have knowledge or you don't" is about as clear as mud. At any stage in the development of an idea or theory, every element of one's thinking must represent knowledge of reality and that one is certain of those elements. What does "you don't have knowledge" mean? To what are you referring? I don't understand how anything you state applies to anything representing correspondence with reality.
  5. "No conflicts among rational men"

    First, you are misquoting her. Second, you have an invalid, unnamed premise in your argument. Her exact quote is "there are no conflicts of interests among rational men." I'll let you read the article for the specifics of her meaning in The Virtue of Selfishness. But, needless to say, disagreements, no matter how vociferously voiced, do not demonstrate conflicts of interest. The unnamed premise in your argument is that there is some other faculty besides reason to settle disputes; and that such reason is an attribute of the individual. When there is a disagreement among people, what else are they to rely on other than their own reason? If you find it astonishing that people disagree, then you need to investigate the facts, using your own reason, and determine who is correct, if anyone. Falling into skepticism because of disagreement is an ancient fallacy in logic.
  6. This is indeed a strange way of defining these terms, and is certainly not the way they are defined by Objectivism. There are strong elements of Pragmatism here. Where does truth or reality fit in with your terms? Since you have left it out of your description, then only "acting" rather than "doubting" or being "good" constitute your elements of knowledge. This leads you to later conclude that "false ideas can be knowledge" and that "not all false ideas are equally good" as if any false idea could be 'good.' Bringing in ethical terms to epistemology is another one of your errors. You later say "Knowledge doesn't allow contradictions. Suppose you're considering two ideas that contradict each other. And you don't have a conclusive answer, you don't have knowledge of which is right. Then using or believing either one is irrational. No "weight of the evidence" or anything else can change this." If you have sufficient knowledge that two ideas contradict each other, then that is a conclusive answer. On what other basis would you be able to "consider that they contradict each other"? There are innumerable situations in life when one has insufficient information to judge whether an idea is 100% correct, yet some action is necessary. Have you ever worked in a time-sensitive deadline-oriented job? What would you do if you're driving in a car at 65 mph and come upon a sharp curve in the road where you don't have sufficient knowledge of whether there is a reason to slow up or keep going at speed? Is it equally "irrational" to act on either idea that something is around the corner where one can't see and slow up vs. keep going at 65 mph because I don't have a conclusive answer about whether there is an object around the corner?
  7. I agree with your conclusions and your observations of his method of presenting of ideas. His flood of posts indicate that he is not here to discuss his ideas or discuss Rand's ideas in relation to his his assertions. Who is he and what is his website? What does "across the internet" mean?
  8. So the observation that all men who have ever lived have died is consistent with both of these generalizations? "All men are mortal." and "All men are immortal." "All desks are brown." "All generalizations make no sense."
  9. A listing of issues you claim are similar is irrelevant without identifying the differences, which are fundamental. I'd suggest searching The Forum, for Popper has been discussed here before.
  10. Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature

    Sure, but without having read the book, it's hard to discuss a critique of it.
  11. Doctors Cure Girl of Leukemia
  12. We've won if this is all there is to OUR opponents.
  13. Happy Birthday to Jim A.

    Happy Birthday, Jim.
  14. Jokes

    Cool, like you said.
  15. Awesome photo of so many great individuals. Thanks for posting.
  16. Objectivity

    As usual, yes you are. Experiencing emotion, introspecting and wishful thinking can be either objective or not depending upon the mental processes. Being 'attached to facts and strict logic' can be non-objective also, as any rationalist like you can attest to.
  17. Jokes

    Yes, I hate when I think I'm buying chocolate chip and find out it's raisins.
  18. Taxing the Rain and the Air

    EPA's Air Pollution Target: Flatulent Cows:
  19. Taxing the Rain and the Air

    For those who thought there is no infinity, there is no end to irrationality, unless we have "a little rebellion now and then." Maryland Taxes Rain Britain Taxes Air
  20. Jokes

    The AP will no longer use the phrase "Illegal immigrants". Instead it will call them "Unregistered Democrats." --Jay Leno
  21. 2nd Thoughts Excellent presentation and refutation of climate change.

    And even if it was do to human activity, UN control of the economic activity on the planet is not the answer.
  23. Are Professional Athletes Economically Productive?

    Are athletes productive? And I suppose those huge stadiums that produce construction jobs and food vendors employed there and transportation system developed to get people into and out of the locations where athletes perform are not tangible assets?
  24. Do Unions Play a Role in Economic Development?

    As a non-union worker my entire life, my employers would only give us benefits equal to or slightly better than the unions after the contract was negotiated and signed. Now, with the poor economy, my benefits are being sliced solely at the discretion of the employer while union employees' benefits cannot change until contract negotiations. For example: sick time was eliminated, annual pay increases are now on 18 month cycles, pay increases are no where near the inflation rate, vacation time for long time employees was cut by almost 20%, etc. There is no negotiation other than 'go find a better paying job.'
  25. Do Unions Play a Role in Economic Development?

    Providing education about the value of the worker's market worth. There is nothing wrong with bargaining as a group with an employer as long as it is voluntary for both the employer and employee; there may be some advantage to doing so. Unions can also bring greater pressure on employers to improve safety conditions. Many employers are not good managers of people and workers in a group can bring more pressure on an employer to treat people better and improve working conditions.