Keys to Success

[Brant Gaede]

With only one exception that I can recall (when I was repeatedly accused of "extortion" by some nut), I have never desired to have any posts deleted from threads in my corner.

As I understand it, the "corners" are given to people who have published extensively and whose works are of interest to OLers; they are not given to isolate someone who annoys many Olers. The odds that Michael would give Phil his own corner are only slightly worse than the odds that I will be trampled to death in Bloomington by a herd of angry elephants.

Ghs

I think you simply don't understand, because you've no real desire to use, the tools available to you in your Corner. It would also appear that Michael offered Phil his own Corner over two years ago.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

With only one exception that I can recall (when I was repeatedly accused of "extortion" by some nut), I have never desired to have any posts deleted from threads in my corner.

As I understand it, the "corners" are given to people who have published extensively and whose works are of interest to OLers; they are not given to isolate someone who annoys many Olers. The odds that Michael would give Phil his own corner are only slightly worse than the odds that I will be trampled to death in Bloomington by a herd of angry elephants.

Ghs

It looks like I will need to watch out for that herd of angry elephants, since I just noticed that Michael did indeed offer Phil own corner a few years ago:

Kat and I have a small place here on OL called "Corners of Further Insight" that has the writings of a series of authors, including Roger and Robert. I'm willing to open a "Phil Coates Corner" if you are interested.

The idea would be to have a place where you could present your ideas and test them out with people in your universe without having to chase an audience. By being online and on a regularly read forum with a small but select audience, it would be easy to search and promote.

This is not to replace a formal thing like publication (in JARS hint hint) or presentations in seminars or stuff like that. It is more rough than that, more geared towards working out specific facets of theories—with the input of peer interaction—than making polished presentations (although sometimes this happens). A space like that is made to sum together with other forces, not be the whole shebang. My own interest is to get you going—to give you a point of reference you can fall back on and point to.

Let me know what you think. If you don't want that, no hard feelings and I won't mention it again (especially not as a jab if we bicker). If you do, it's yours. At this stage of OL, there is no money involved on either side. (I have some ideas for later, but they are still in the planning stage.)

btw - This would never mean you would have to agree with me or even like me. Nor the contrary. I just want to see you producing.

Michael

I just scanned that old thread for the first time. As far as I can tell, Phil claims that he solved the "problem of induction" and had profoundly original insights in legal theory and possibly other fields, but he won't tell anyone what they are because of some unfortunate encounters with Peikoff.

I hate to be the one to break the news to Phil, but the "problem" of induction was solved many times in earlier centuries, primarily by Aristotelian philosophers. As promulgated today, the "problem" of induction is a problem only for those who accept the incoherent mess that philosophers call Hume's theory of knowledge. Hume (unlike earlier empiricists, such as Locke) had no theory of abstraction to speak of, so he had no viable theory of concept formation. Induction is not the only "problem" that emerged from this cognitive vacuum.

In any case, Michael offered Phil his own corner so he could develop some of his original ideas. Not long after I became active again on OL, Phil and I had an extended argument about intellectual history, and Phil noted that he might post his ideas on this matter in a more systematic fashion. I am still waiting, and we are still waiting, for some presentation of Phil's original ideas in any area. All I have seen so far is the kind of fluff that Phil has been posting on this thread.

In my experience, people who claim to have profoundly original ideas but who won't reveal them are typically afraid of criticism. If I am wrong about this, and if Phil is willing to reveal his original theories in his own corner, then, by all means, give him a corner.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Stay out of Bloomingdale's. It's full of elephants.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

With only one exception that I can recall (when I was repeatedly accused of "extortion" by some nut), I have never desired to have any posts deleted from threads in my corner. As I understand it, the "corners" are given to people who have published extensively and whose works are of interest to OLers; they are not given to isolate someone who annoys many Olers. The odds that Michael would give Phil his own corner are only slightly worse than the odds that I will be trampled to death in Bloomington by a herd of angry elephants. Ghs

I think you simply don't understand, because you've no real desire to use, the tools available to you in your Corner. It would also appear that Michael offered Phil his own Corner over two years ago. --Brant

I looked for such tools yesterday, after reading your post, and I couldn't find anything. Where would I find them?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

With only one exception that I can recall (when I was repeatedly accused of "extortion" by some nut), I have never desired to have any posts deleted from threads in my corner. As I understand it, the "corners" are given to people who have published extensively and whose works are of interest to OLers; they are not given to isolate someone who annoys many Olers. The odds that Michael would give Phil his own corner are only slightly worse than the odds that I will be trampled to death in Bloomington by a herd of angry elephants. Ghs

I think you simply don't understand, because you've no real desire to use, the tools available to you in your Corner. It would also appear that Michael offered Phil his own Corner over two years ago. --Brant

I looked for such tools yesterday, after reading your post, and I couldn't find anything. Where would I find them?

Ghs

You'll have to ask Michael.

--Brant

under the bed

[George H. Smith]

With only one exception that I can recall (when I was repeatedly accused of "extortion" by some nut), I have never desired to have any posts deleted from threads in my corner. As I understand it, the "corners" are given to people who have published extensively and whose works are of interest to OLers; they are not given to isolate someone who annoys many Olers. The odds that Michael would give Phil his own corner are only slightly worse than the odds that I will be trampled to death in Bloomington by a herd of angry elephants. Ghs

I think you simply don't understand, because you've no real desire to use, the tools available to you in your Corner. It would also appear that Michael offered Phil his own Corner over two years ago. --Brant

I looked for such tools yesterday, after reading your post, and I couldn't find anything. Where would I find them? Ghs

You'll have to ask Michael. --Brant under the bed

If such tools exist, they are relatively new. When I wanted to delete the "extortion" posts in the plagiarism thread in my corner, I had no means of doing so. Michael had to take care of it.

Ghs

P.S. You may be confusing "corner" posts with OL blogs, which do give a person the sort of control you speak of.

[Brant Gaede]

He claims the tools exist so he should know. I think Stephen has used them.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> the "problem" of induction was solved many times in earlier centuries, primarily by Aristotelian philosophers. [GHS]

Care to back up that wild (and philosophically ignorant) claim?

[George H. Smith]

He claims the tools exist so he should know. I think Stephen has used them. --Brant

Okay, I will wait for Michael to chime in. I remain skeptical, however, since I have searched every option available to me. For example, all of have a "delete" option for our own posts but not for others. The options available for threads in my "corner" are exactly the same. And options available in "My Settings" make no mention of "corner" options. Neither does any other page.

If such options exist, they are a well-kept secret. 8-)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> the "problem" of induction was solved many times in earlier centuries, primarily by Aristotelian philosophers. [GHS] Care to back up that wild (and philosophically ignorant) claim?

I have posted extensively on the subject of induction before, and I quoted a number of early sources. One was H.W.B. Joseph's An Introduction to Logic, first published in 1906. Look up the rest, if you are so interested.

Joseph's book was sold by the old NBI Book Service. Ever read it, Phil? No, of course you haven't.

A variety of Thomistic works published in the early 20th century, such as those by Peter Coffey, also deal with the subject of induction. Coffey's two-volume work, Epistemology, was reviewed by Roy Childs during the early 1970s, in an early issue of "Books for Libertarians" (later "Libertarian Review'), so it has been known to O'ist types for decades -- except you, apparently. Later in the century Celestine Bittle (whom I quoted in ATCAG) published a number of excellent textbooks on Thomistic philosophy, and you can find good treatments of induction in some of those. These two authors are only the tip of the iceberg -- and you would know this, if you ever read anyone in philosophy other than O'ist types.

Nevertheless, if you would like to reveal your profoundly original insights on this and other subjects, please, feel free. You won't, of course, because you are blowing hot air. You will say instead that you refuse to cast pearls before swiine. Yeah, right.

Ghs

[PDS]

[Phil] sees himself as a Teacher in every instance, and simply will not take advice or help from any quarter.

At this point, I'd venture that he's also seeing himself as the Great-Minded versus the Petty-Minded.

Well, um, hey -- here is a conversation starter:

Did anyone note and puzzle over my Meyers-Briggs plug in my signature line? I think Meyers-Briggs is horseshit. What thinks you?

I think it's botched and trite Jung, which Jung would have groaned at. But -- spoiler alert -- I doubt I'll get into it.

(I copied the whole post, just in case you "think better" of it and delete or alter it. That was a speech and then some.)

Ellen

Ellen and WSS:

I have puzzled over the Meyers-Briggs designations both generally, and specifically. I have tested out as an INTJ 3-4 times over the years, and being a sophmore-in-high-school level Jung student, have found it interesting at that level as well. It is certainly warmed-over plagiarism of Jung. With that said, the INTJ descriptions almost fit me to a tee, and have actually helped me with self-understanding, especially as it relates to my dealings with younger lawyers that work for me.

And, since INTJ's are (supposedly) only 2% of the population or whatever, I also derive a very nice dose of second-hander self esteem from it all...

[Philip Coates]

Subject: George H. Smith's Usual "Intellectual Intimidation" Bullshit

> the "problem" of induction was solved many times in earlier centuries, primarily by Aristotelian philosophers. [GHS]

> Care to back up that wild (and philosophically ignorant) claim? [Phil]

Just what I thought you'd do George:

A lot of reference to tons of books that "solved it". But you're unable to actually *state what the solution is*. Just the usual Georgian Argument from Intimidation:

"Everyone knows this...except you, you dummy...and I'm not going to say what it is".

George I'm calling you out:

1. You -don't- know of an answer that has been published to the problem of induction.

2. By Joseph, by Coffey, by Biddle, or by others beyond the "tip of the iceberg"...as you so pompously and stupidly claim - lacking knowledge of the history of philosophy.

3. If you did know of a solution, I"m pretty damn sure you would have stated it. Or given a summary in some form.

4. I wonder if you could even -state- the basic problem of induction in a sentence or two.

5. Or if you could state why philosophers (and well-read intellectuals) generally consider the problem unsolved.

[George H. Smith]

Subject: George H. Smith's Usual "Intellectual Intimidation" Bullshit

> the "problem" of induction was solved many times in earlier centuries, primarily by Aristotelian philosophers. [GHS]

> Care to back up that wild (and philosophically ignorant) claim? [Phil]

Just what I thought you'd do George:

A lot of reference to tons of books that "solved it". But you're unable to actually *state what the solution is*. Just the usual Georgian Argument from Intimidation:

"Everyone knows this...except you, you dummy...and I'm not going to say what it is".

George I'm calling you out:

1. You -don't- know of an answer that has been published to the problem of induction.

2. By Joseph, by Coffey, by Biddle, or by others beyond the "tip of the iceberg"...as you so pompously and stupidly claim - lacking knowledge of the history of philosophy.

3. If you did know of a solution, I"m pretty damn sure you would have stated it. Or given a summary in some form.

4. I wonder if you could even -state- the basic problem of induction in a sentence or two.

5. Or if you could state why philosophers (and well-read intellectuals) generally consider the problem unsolved.

Since you appear to be as inept with the Search function as you are with the Quote function, I have done the 30 seconds of work for you.

The link below will take you to dozens of posts in which I discussed induction, and these are not all of them. In these posts you will find discussions of the problem of induction generally, how Hume's epistemology generated the problem, criticisms of Karl Popper's treatment of induction, defenses of Harriman's treatment of induction, and more.

You picked the wrong guy to bullshit, and you should have learned this by know. I have met many blustering loudmouths during my career, and you are as transparent as they come.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&andor_type=and&sid=62fa7f5105df6eaf2cb5681c660d00d6&search_author=George+H.+Smith&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_content=both&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_app_filters[forums][noPreview]=0&search_app_filters[forums][pCount]=&search_app_filters[forums][pViews]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortDir]=0&search_term=induction&search_app=forums&st=0

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You should have had moderator powers on your corner. It was an oversight. You weren't active on OL way back when I set it up (at Roger's request). And when you started posting in earnest, I just didn't think about it. Sorry. It's now fixed.

As of this moment, you rule supreme in your corner. Off with their heads if you so determine.

(Let me know if your superpowers do not magically appear.)

As to a Phil corner, my original intention was to give him a place to work on intellectual papers he wanted to produce. He was setting out teasers and people were interested. Even Barbara was interested. But he didn't take me up on it. Now I'm inclined to let him try the blog (if he wishes) before making any offer like that again.

WSS is showing what a good thing these blogs can be for working out ideas alongside the OL community. He can jump back and forth into the forum as it suits him and he can get selective input from OL members since there are links to blog entries on the sidebar. If a person wants to work out his thinking while being near, but not directly in front of, the smart folks here on OL, I see this as a great opportunity. (And it's free for OL members.)

For the record, I would never set up a Corner of Insight just to get someone to stop annoying folks. That would cheapen the whole idea of the corners. Anyway, I have the Garbage Pile for that.

Michael

[caroljane]

George,

You should have had moderator powers on your corner. It was an oversight. You weren't active on OL way back when I set it up (at Roger's request). And when you started posting in earnest, I just didn't think about it. Sorry. It's now fixed.

As of this moment, you rule supreme in your corner. Off with their heads if you so determine.

(Let me know if your superpowers do not magically appear.)

As to a Phil corner, my original intention was to give him a place to work on intellectual papers he wanted to produce. He was setting out teasers and people were interested. Even Barbara was interested. But he didn't take me up on it. Now I'm inclined to let him try the blog (if he wishes) before making any offer like that again.

WSS is showing what a good thing these blogs can be for working out ideas alongside the OL community. He can jump back and forth into the forum as it suits him and he can get selective input from OL members since there are links to blog entries on the sidebar. If a person wants to work out his thinking while being near, but not directly in front of, the smart folks here on OL, I see this as a great opportunity. (And it's free for OL members.)

For the record, I would never set up a Corner of Insight just to get someone to stop annoying folks. That would cheapen the whole idea of the corners. Anyway, I have the Garbage Pile for that.

Michael

Exactly right. I do not need a blog since I do not think much anyway, but I sure enjoy watching other people do it. WSS thinks real great.

[George H. Smith]

George,

You should have had moderator powers on your corner. It was an oversight. You weren't active on OL way back when I set it up (at Roger's request). And when you started posting in earnest, I just didn't think about it. Sorry. It's now fixed.

As of this moment, you rule supreme in your corner. Off with their heads if you so determine.

(Let me know if your superpowers do not magically appear.)

As to a Phil corner, my original intention was to give him a place to work on intellectual papers he wanted to produce. He was setting out teasers and people were interested. Even Barbara was interested. But he didn't take me up on it. Now I'm inclined to let him try the blog (if he wishes) before making any offer like that again.

WSS is showing what a good thing these blogs can be for working out ideas alongside the OL community. He can jump back and forth into the forum as it suits him and he can get selective input from OL members since there are links to blog entries on the sidebar. If a person wants to work out his thinking while being near, but not directly in front of, the smart folks here on OL, I see this as a great opportunity. (And it's free for OL members.)

For the record, I would never set up a Corner of Insight just to get someone to stop annoying folks. That would cheapen the whole idea of the corners. Anyway, I have the Garbage Pile for that.

Michael

Thanks, Michael. I now have the options of Delete and even Edit for all threads in my corner. I also have an Unapprove option. What does that do? Ban someone from the thread, or something less drastic?

As Spider-Man -- and Voltaire before him -- said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

You should have had moderator powers on your corner. It was an oversight. You weren't active on OL way back when I set it up (at Roger's request). And when you started posting in earnest, I just didn't think about it. Sorry. It's now fixed.

As of this moment, you rule supreme in your corner. Off with their heads if you so determine.

(Let me know if your superpowers do not magically appear.)

As to a Phil corner, my original intention was to give him a place to work on intellectual papers he wanted to produce. He was setting out teasers and people were interested. Even Barbara was interested. But he didn't take me up on it. Now I'm inclined to let him try the blog (if he wishes) before making any offer like that again.

WSS is showing what a good thing these blogs can be for working out ideas alongside the OL community. He can jump back and forth into the forum as it suits him and he can get selective input from OL members since there are links to blog entries on the sidebar. If a person wants to work out his thinking while being near, but not directly in front of, the smart folks here on OL, I see this as a great opportunity. (And it's free for OL members.)

For the record, I would never set up a Corner of Insight just to get someone to stop annoying folks. That would cheapen the whole idea of the corners. Anyway, I have the Garbage Pile for that.

Michael

Exactly right. I do not need a blog since I do not think much anyway, but I sure enjoy watching other people do it. WSS thinks real great.

Who is WSS?

Ghs

[Selene]

Who is WSS?

Ghs

Mr. Scherk I believe...William Scott Scherk <<<<yep that be he!

[Xray]

Exactly right. I do not need a blog since I do not think much anyway, but I sure enjoy watching other people do it. WSS thinks real great.

Who is WSS?

Ghs

Mr. Scherk I believe...William Scott Scherk <<<<yep that be he!

WSS is indeed a very multifaceted, creative thinker.

I now have the options of Delete and even Edit for all threads in my corner. I also have an Unapprove option. What does that do? Ban someone from the thread, or something less drastic?

As Spider-Man -- and Voltaire before him -- said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Ghs

I can't see you as the type who would delete any posts that you don't like. [i'm not talking about insulting or troll posts violating the forum TOS].

I think you would try to refute the arguments in them, and if you couldn't find any valid arguments, you would tell the poster this point-blank. But delete those posts - my gut feeling is that this somehow is not 'in sync' with your personality.

[caroljane]

Exactly right. I do not need a blog since I do not think much anyway, but I sure enjoy watching other people do it. WSS thinks real great.

Who is WSS?

Ghs

Mr. Scherk I believe...William Scott Scherk <<<<yep that be he!

WSS is indeed a very multifaceted, creative thinker.

And you are a highly focused, creative thinker. You are essentially a scholar I think and WSS is essentially a -psychologicl investigator, you are both scrupulously wedded to fact. Not surprising you would admire each other.

[Brant Gaede]

For the record, I would never set up a Corner of Insight just to get someone to stop annoying folks. That would cheapen the whole idea of the corners. Anyway, I have the Garbage Pile for that.

Michael

Phil: "Oh, no, Br'er Bear! Don't throw me into that Briar Patch! Please, please, please! That's the horriblus thing you can do to me!"

--Brant

(apocryphal)

[caroljane]

For the record, I would never set up a Corner of Insight just to get someone to stop annoying folks. That would cheapen the whole idea of the corners. Anyway, I have the Garbage Pile for that.

Michael

Phil: "Oh, no, Br'er Bear! Don't throw me into that Briar Patch! Please, please, please! That's the horriblus thing you can do to me!"

--Brant

(apocryphal)

And whatever you do, don't go into Mr McGregor's Garden

-Beatrix Potter

[9thdoctor]

Thanks, Michael. I now have the options of Delete and even Edit for all threads in my corner. I also have an Unapprove option. What does that do? Ban someone from the thread, or something less drastic?

How about an experiment?

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=152994

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I also have an Unapprove option. What does that do? Ban someone from the thread, or something less drastic?

George,

I think that is for making a post invisible to the public, but not deleting it. You can use it for things like if someone wrote something long and you think they should be able to keep a copy of their text, but you don't want it on your thread. This gives you time to bicker with them offline and maybe send them a copy before blasting their crap to oblivion.

(Think about the power you can lord over those who pantingly want approval. )

You should also be able to use it on your own thread or post for a work in progress that you will unveil (approve) only when it is finished.

Fiddle with it and see what happens.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

WSS is indeed a very multifaceted, creative thinker.

Let the man speak for himself, I say...

... I think I am becoming demented myself.

Michael