BaalChatzaf

A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Then what is useful? Rand or not Rand?

--Brant

Rand had her uses.  She called out government for what it was and is....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 2:10 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

A principle is an abstract supposition.   The only a priori true statements are those equivalent to the law of non-contradiction.  

Maybe you didn't read the definition - again, you usually don't bother to address what doesn't suit you. You keep repeating the same argument, ad nauseam, as if you don't hear anything else.

"A priori" - for one.

A principle is NOT "a priori". It is not "a supposition". It is a combination of congruent concepts (as I read it) and each concept contains large numbers of facts. Therefore, a principle is *factual* and factually-based. It's the consequence of cognition, not the fore-runner or cause . Principles then are the hierarchical pinnacles of many concepts.

So the only leg you stand on is to equate "principles" -and- "apriori", like some earlier philosophers. Take that away and you don't have an argument. 

For the n'th time, you've heard that Objectivism doesn't accept the apriori/a posteriori and analytic/synthetic distinctions, dilemmas - or - dichotomies. These have been logically invalidated and dismissed. But it suits you to ignore this and pretend that Objectivists uphold "a priori", to lump them with the Rationalists. To accept the fallacy of a priori, means to accept (at least): 1. we come into the world with pre-formed knowledge or 2. knowledge is given to us by supernatural inspiration 3. or, we simply intuit knowledge. Etc. But knowledge can't come by any magical means, nor without awareness and effort-- presupposing a conscious mind.

On the other hand, facts of reality which are experientially sensed, perceived and integrated (finally) into conceptual principles by an individual, is hard to swallow for the "a posteriorists", many of whom are anti-conceptualists. For them, I gather, the process of reason - observation and induction and concept forming - can still only be - "apriori". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, anthony said:

Maybe you didn't read the definition - again, you usually don't bother to address what doesn't suit you. You keep repeating the same argument, ad nauseam, as if you don't hear anything else.

"A priori" - for one.

A principle is NOT "a priori". It is not "a supposition". It is a combination of congruent concepts (as I read it) and each concept contains large numbers of facts. Therefore, a principle is *factual* and factually-based. It's the consequence of cognition, not the fore-runner or cause . Principles then are the hierarchical pinnacles of many concepts.

So the only leg you stand on is to equate "principles" -and- "apriori", like some earlier philosophers. Take that away and you don't have an argument. 

For the n'th time, you've heard that Objectivism doesn't accept the apriori/a posteriori and analytic/synthetic distinctions, dilemmas - or - dichotomies. These have been logically invalidated and dismissed. But it suits you to ignore this and pretend that Objectivists uphold "a priori", to lump them with the Rationalists. To accept the fallacy of a priori, means to accept (at least): 1. we come into the world with pre-formed knowledge or 2. knowledge is given to us by supernatural inspiration 3. or, we simply intuit knowledge. Etc. But knowledge can't come by any magical means, nor without awareness and effort-- presupposing a conscious mind.

On the other hand, facts of reality which are experientially sensed, perceived and integrated (finally) into conceptual principles by an individual, is hard to swallow for the "a posteriorists", many of whom are anti-conceptualists. For them, I gather, the process of reason - observation and induction and concept forming - can still only be - "apriori". 

Name one necessarily true factual principle, pertaining to the world,  not a tautology,  which become known  independent of experience.  Anything that requires experience is synthetic,  not analytic. 

Kant's Major Blunder was his insistence that there are synthetic principles which are true a priori --- i.e. self evidence and necessarily true in themselves.  Such principles do not exist.

The surest principles pertaining to the world are those derived inductively from experience and by virtue of their inductive origins are capable of being falsified empirically.  Every bit of science we have came from experiences and not one bit of science we have is  necessarily and absolutely established as true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Name one necessarily true factual principle, pertaining to the world,  not a tautology,  which become known  independent of experience. 

Do the following qualify as a necessarily true factual principle, pertaining to the world, not a tautology, which became known independent of experience?

A.  The Pythagorean theorem.

B.  There is no necessarily true factual principle, pertaining to the world, not a tautology, which became known independent of experience.

To answer the question for each item, you go thru these questions for each item.

1.  Is it a principle?

2.  Is it factual?

3.  Is it necessarily true?

4.  Does it pertain to the world?

5.  Is it a tautology?

6.  Did it become known independent of experience?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jts said:

Do the following qualify as a necessarily true factual principle, pertaining to the world, not a tautology, which became known independent of experience?

A.  The Pythagorean theorem.

B.  There is no necessarily true factual principle, pertaining to the world, not a tautology, which became known independent of experience.

To answer the question for each item, you go thru these questions for each item.

1.  Is it a principle?

2.  Is it factual?

3.  Is it necessarily true?

4.  Does it pertain to the world?

5.  Is it a tautology?

6.  Did it become known independent of experience?

 

The Pythagorean theorem is about right triangles which are abstract mathematical objects and have no physical existence. Therefore the theorem is not a statement about the world, which is physical.  The theorem is about abstractions that we draw from the world (humans do that sort of thing). 

In non-Euclidean geometries the Pythagorean Theorem does not hold globally, however on differentiable manifolds the P. Theorem holds approximately in very small local regions. Given the postulates of Euclidean geometry (or a metrical equivalent)  the P. Theorem follows logically from the postulates.  The P. Theorem holds globally only in flat spaces (i.e. globally Euclidean spaces).  If you look around,  I have no doubt you will notice that you do not live in a perfectly flat space.

Start with the Euclidean postulates,  apply standard mathematical reasoning (which is modeled in First Order Predicate Logic)  and eventually you will infer the Pythagorean Theorem, which by the way was not discovered by Pythagoras and was known in several high cultures prior to the time of Pythagoras.  It was known in Egypt, Babylon(Persia), Sumer, China and was known to the Aztecs, Mayan and the Incan.   In just about every culture where length is measured and right angle structures are required the RIght Triangle Theorem is (or was) known.  If Kant thought it was a synthetic a priori statement I can sympathize with him.  He was wrong,  but in such cases the mistake is very plausible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jts wrote: Ayn Rand smoked. Ayn Rand was a moron. end quote

Metaphorically speaking. Pooh had a small friend named Susie. The little cocker spaniel was asleep on the porch when she heard a noise. Susie jumped up and ran at a large bear going through a garbage pail. The bear scooped the brave little dog up and ate her. She was doing her job but she was also a moron. Bad Pooh. Pooh was very naughty.

Ba’al wrote: And people who put philosophy before facts are in particular danger. end quote

Well said, Bob. I remember seeing a list of things throughout the ages, that people said were true with absolute certainty. And they were wrong. I read the “Emperor’s New Clothes” when I was a kid and even though it goes beyond the what is believable, I was very much impressed with the story.

Peter

From “Top 10 Craziest Things Scientists Used to Believe.”

Humorism is a theory which postulates that the human body is made up of four humors; black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood. When there is an imbalance, we become ill or suffer from disabilities if they are not treated with haste.

Tobacco has long been used throughout history as a form of trade or to seal a deal through the smoking of a peace pipe. Although one would think that inhaling smoke was a not a good thing, this idea wasn’t accepted by mainstream public until the mid 60s, and it only gathered real steam almost two decades later. With the backing of famous adverts like “’more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!”, physicians would often prescribe the use of tobacco to cure a variety of ailments such as asthma and as aides in weight loss. Perhaps one of the most bizarre health claims of cigarettes was the advisement which claimed pregnant women should smoke as they would give birth to smaller babies. Whilst a smaller size may help in childbirth, in hindsight we now know the pain of a wide birth canal far outweighs the negative effects of smoking during pregnancy. Although it was known that cigarette smoking did cause some problems such as throat irritation, it was stated that this only affected some people, usually those of a sensitive disposition. Instead of not recommending smoking at all, doctors were instead advising to use a different version of cigarettes (such as Lucky Strikes) which were marketed as less irritating to tender throats. Add this together with tobacco enemas and tobacco toothpaste and you might just wonder what health professionals were really smoking back then.

It’s hard to believe there was once a time when scientists believed radiation was actually good for you, yet this was true during the early 20th century. As a direct result of this misguided belief, there were many popular radioactive products that were actively marketed as being good for the health, even curing such ailments as arthritis and rheumatism. These ranged from ingesting radioactive water, brushing your teeth with radioactive toothpaste thought to make your teeth shine and sparkle, to even lying down in uranium rich sand to sooth those annoying aches and pains. This practice continued well into the 1950s, with perhaps the most famous case being the Radium Girls. These factory workers were challenged with the task of painting watch dials with radioactive paint to make them glow in the dark. They didn’t just stop there; they would often paint their nails and teeth for fun. As we would now expect, many died or suffered from anemia or necrosis of the jaw, commonly known as radium jaw.

Despite being insanely toxic and requiring special handling, mercury was once used by scientists in a variety of very different ways. In the early 20th century mercury was often administered regularly as a laxative and dewormer for children as well as being used as an active ingredient in teething powders for young infants. Additionally, traditional medicine saw it being used for all conditions ranging from constipation and toothaches to depression and child-bearing.

We all know the importance of washing our hands before preparing food, and we know that this simple task is also very important when it comes to performing surgery. This wasn’t always the case. Once upon a time the common belief amongst doctors and surgeons was that a gentleman’s hands were always clean, thus did not need to be washed. As you can probably guess, mortality rate was quite high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radiation is good for you--to a point. For instance, we live in  a sea of background radiation and the higher the altitude the greater the dose--and the benefit of statistically less likely to get cancer if you live there. This is called radiation hormesis. You can probably double the dose considered tolerable by the powers that be before you start descending the other side of the benefit curve.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Radiation is good for you--to a point. For instance, we live in  a sea of background radiation and the higher the altitude the greater the dose--and the benefit of statistically less likely to get cancer if you live there. This is called radiation hormesis. You can probably double the dose considered tolerable by the powers that be before you start descending the other side of the benefit curve.

--Brant

Unfortunately there are no  large longitudinal studies of the effects of radiation.  So almost everything that is said about smallish doses  is speculation.

The world splits into two camps:  the no-threshold camp and the threshold camp.

See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2011/04/tiny_nukes.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Unfortunately there are no  large longitudinal studies of the effects of radiation.  So almost everything that is said about smallish doses  is speculation.

The world splits into two camps:  the no-threshold camp and the threshold camp.

See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2011/04/tiny_nukes.html

The no-threshold camp is crap because of the background radiation.

--Brant

absolute crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The no-threshold camp is crap because of the background radiation.

--Brant

absolute crap

We have no longitudinal controlled study to back that up.  We also do not have enough proof to falsify it.  So it remains a matter of speculation and Faith. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as a nuclear energy worker I can state it probabbbly isn’t very good for you?  Many of my coworkers have died of cancer from as early as 40 to 60.  Granted they have (In Canada ) lowered our dose allowed from 5R/year down to 2R/year whole body dose.  So yes on top of background radiation/N.O.R.M.S.(naturally occurring radioactive materials) I pick up small daily doses of gamma rays from working with Ir 192.

The other trade that I know of that are not radiation workers that DO pick up a lot of radiation? Commercial airline pilots from cosmic rays. They do have guidelines though including limiting flights over the poles and rescheduling when there is solar flare activity.

As for genetic modifiers they still don’t know for sure but say the probability of mutations in ones children isn’t apparent but may affect negatively ones grandchildren.  

I would also surmise that unlike other trades it probably is not a good idea to have One’s kids follow in their parents footsteps. (Although some do this!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the "tin foil hat" idea is foolish and worthy of laughter, but I wonder if building your house from "better materials" could protect you from outside radiation? Simply opening a window can help protect you from radon gas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now