Daniel Barnes
-
Posts
1,147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Everything posted by Daniel Barnes
-
OK, so Kelly explains why Ellen still don't seem to have grasped the point he is making. http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2013/07/07/the-quest-for-doubt/comment-page-1/#comment-17754 I will try as well. There are two things: 1) What is true and 2) What I believe (sometimes with a feeling of unassailable certainty) is true. Ironically, her arguments for certainty turned out to be wrong in at least one, and quite possibly two, ways that she didn'trealise. The point being that while she was feeling unassailably certain, she was actually wrong without knowing it. This islike a perfect little case study for the benefits of a fallibilist attitude. Understanding this is a very important part of Critical Rationalism. This is why it is clear Ellen hasn't quite grokked Kelly's, and Popper's, point. Popper argues the truth exists, that you can know it but...and this is the important bit...you can never quite know that you know it. As Ellen has found out.
-
Lee Kelly argues here in some detail that Ellen's criticisms are on the wrong track. For example her argument from "intelligibility" doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and what seems intuitively unassailable turns out to be quite questionable under closer analysis. Further, I would add that the above comment about Kelly "shooting the horse Popper rode in on" suggests it is Ellen's readings of Popper that have missed the point, not Kelly's. Popper's work from "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" onwards is an attempt to answer the problem of "what is the best way to use logic to discover the truth about the world?" And his answer was logic is better used to eliminate what's false, rather than find out what's true. So this other criticism of Kelly also seems on the wrong track. But let's give Ellen's criticisms of Kelly the maximum sympathy, and assume she is right and Kelly is wrong about the statement "S:S doesn't exist". The question then is, what follows from this? What wider point does she think this makes? One can anticipate an obvious larger argument from this point, perhaps following from Rand, and likewise anticipate what is also obviously wrong with that wider argument. But we will not know until she explains her wider point, if indeed she has one.
-
Once again, I don't really get this blanket hostility to perfectly reasonable suggestions. One of the things reading Popper taught me is to try to check on the problem under discussion as early as possible. Saves people wasting time talking at cross purposes, especially when they might have key issues in common. Often major disagreements turn out to be merely verbal confusions at bottom, and not real issues. While I'm pretty thick skinned, it doesn't seem productive carrying on a discussion with someone who treats everything I say as if it were some dastardly trick, and who doesn't want to clearly state the point they're trying to make anyway.
-
Well, you can impute what you will into it, but the fact remains this is a principle I believe in, and so act accordingly. If you are one of those folks who loves them a good terminological dispute, well that's your choice. Objectivism is chock-full of such scholasticism, so you're not alone. Following Popper, I don't regard it as productive. As far as "unclarity" goes, I admit I'm not clear as to the more important question of what problem you're trying to solve with this discussion. Particularly as you now seem to be pursuing whatever it is with increasing momentum by posting Lee Kelly's essay in full. What point are you trying to make? Can you summarise it ? For my part, while I don't know Lee, I'm happy to alert him to the fact you're critiquing his essay, in case he wants to come over here and discuss it directly.
-
Ellen, I'll take that as a "no". PS: If you have read your Popper, you should know that not quibbling over terminology is not a "ploy", but a principle. Of course, there are people that love nothing more than quibbling endlessly over terms. It is an regrettably widespread practice, especially in philosophy. As you know well I am not one of those people. So, following this principle, I avoid getting into lengthy debates over this sort of thing.
-
Merlin, if you think a mild, qualified criticism like: "I would argue that by Rand not specifying 'primacy of physical existence' it makes her formulation less precise (though I agree that in some passages she hints at a dualism). At any rate, quibbling over who's got the most precise terminology is not that important, so we can agree to disagree over this." ...constitutes a "slam" then clearly you need to spend a little more time in the ring...;-)
-
Um. I think I don't agree that "primacy of physical reality" is a more precise way of stating what Rand meant by "primacy of existence."For one thing, she and Branden rejected the description "materialist" - and there are hints of at least property dualism in things she said about mind and volition. For another, there's the supposed adopting of Aristotle's views on causality. Also, there's the issue of "Peikoff's puffs," which was a late development (early '70s). Ok, you disagree over the precision of terminology. I would argue that by Rand not specifying "primacy of physical existence" it makes her formulation less precise (though I agree that in some passages she hints at a dualism). At any rate, quibbling over who's got the most precise terminology is not that important, so we can agree to disagree over this. That aside, is there a larger problem that you're trying to solve with this discussion?
-
Maybe I'll drop Wikipedia a note advising them that the apostrophe shouldn't be in the url I was using, and that it's resulting in a broken link.
-
That is very strange. However, I will check again. I am nothing if not a fallibilist....;-) I confirm the correct link is here. EDIT: Woah, that's weird. It's the correct link, but for some reason reverts to another link when clicked. I'll just paste it in directly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper's_three_worlds EDIT: ah, beginning to see the problem...
-
This is commonly called a false alternative. I thought I was trying to be reasonable. So what exactly is your point?
-
He shows how Barnes duelism works. Ellen refers to Barnes' "shell game." He responds as if she said Popper's "shell game." Merlin, that's unfair, not to mention being untrue. In my #67 I offered two options: 1) Popper is playing a shell game or 2) I am doing likewise by misrepresenting him. As my own views follow Popper's views closely, it was entirely possible Ellen really meant 1). Alternatively it is quite possible I've got it wrong and she's right about Popper, or 2), in which case Ellen can test her views against the other Popper experts I suggested.
-
Yes, Sir! No further "need to know," says the commander. Problem even there: I don't know what the commander means by "the primacy of physical reality." The wording sounds like a causal theory and not what I understand Popper to mean by "realist metaphysics." (A belief that there is a reality which is what it is doesn't commit to a particular causal theory.) Ellen Woah, this seems to be unnecessarily touchy. I'm not "commanding" you to do anything. You said my views were so incoherent you couldn't make sense of them. So I just gave you the top line: I believe in the primacy of physical reality, or what Rand called somewhat less precisely the "primacy of existence". This is something I agree with Rand about, and where Popper and Rand agree too. I can't put it any more plainly than that. If you don't understand what Popper meant by this, well go read some Popper (I command you!...;-)). I would explain myself, but you say my writing is completely incomprehensible. So avoid me and go to the source. I have already provided a link to the Wiki page on the subject. All I can say is that in Popper's 3-world theory there is a reason he called the physical world "World 1"!
-
If you can't make out my views that's fine. Personally I don't think Popper's views are a "shell game". I think he's a serious thinker. Alternatively if you don't think I'm portraying Critical Rationalism properly you're welcome to take your views - for example The Great Tree Frog Question - to some expert CR commenters and see how you get on. I've offered a few places in the past. Have you ever taken them up? I also offered Lee Kelly's essay just now, who has a similar view to mine. But perhaps you think he's playing a "shell game" too. Re:cosmology, there's no need to be pedantic. Broadly, it just means a view of how the universe is structured. You can have a religious or even mythical cosmology. It's not a strictly scientific term. At any rate, there' no need to make a Federal case out of it. I believe in the primacy of physical reality; that's all you need to know should you feel the need to cite me on the subject in future...:-)
-
I didn't say anything about cosmology, and I don't know what Popper's cosmology, if he had one, was. Ellen Oh, ok. It looks like this. It's Popper's theory of the metaphysical structure of the universe if you like. I am rather fond of this theory. You will note it is primarily a realist one. I'm not sure what else I need to add. For whatever reason, either through poor explanation on my part or misunderstanding on yours, you've ended up with the wrong opinion as to my views. It's of no great importance, but just so you know I am as committed to a realist view of the world as Popper or any other epistemological fallibilist is. (And yes, I agree that fallibilism too might be a mistake.) As luck would have it, over at criticalrationalism.net Lee Kelly has just written a short essay on this very question. By coincidence Lee was one of the participants in your Great Tree Frog Question over at the ARCHNblog. Hopefully that will give you an idea of the CR view.
-
From what I have read, The Best Living Philosopher seems to contend that few if any understand Rand and Popper as well as he does. This is hardly surprising, given that he is The Best Living Philosopher.
-
Hi Ellen, I suggest you have either misunderstood or misremembered the conversation, which I seem to recall is this one. Or perhaps I did not make my own position clear enough, though reading it back it seems clear enough to me. Interestingly, I suspect you have misunderstood it, and it's possible it's a root misunderstanding as your comment #48 makes what I think is a similar mistake. I am travelling today, so can only reply briefly now. But it's always interesting to try to reconstruct your opponent's argument rather than simply disagree with it. So if you were me reading your comment #48, what do you think I would take to be the root error in it? At any rate, I can happily testify that contrary to Ellen's impressions, Popper's cosmology - which holds the physical world as primary - is my preferred one.
-
I heard that my name was being mentioned in vain around here, so I'll just drop in to correct this error. I do share Popper's commitment to realist metaphysics. Ellen is simply mistaken.
-
Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature
Daniel Barnes replied to curi's topic in Objectivism in Dark Places
Hi TMJ Just a dropping in briefly here as I'm concerned you seem to think your comments are being deleted at our site. We have a very liberal comments policy. We don't even delete or block commenters that are obviously abusive, calling us evil, assholes, bastards etc etc, and we get a quite a few of those. Our policy is that this sort of thing actually says more about pro-Objectivist commenters than it does us. We don't even have moderation switched on. I've maybe turned it on two or three times in the eight years the blog has been running, and that was because we had a notorious troll sock-puppeting us for a while. The only chance you'll have "a shelf life of 30s" is if you're that troll, or if your comment includes references to World of Warcraft Gold and/or penis enlargement. We've had the odd blogger crash and recent comments plug in glitch that's killed a thread or two. Perhaps you were unlucky enough to be caught in one of those. Anyway, just to be clear, unlike many Objectivist sites, we do not block our critics. Please feel free to test this policy at your leisure. Cheers D -
What dictionary did Ayn Rand use?
Daniel Barnes replied to MrBenjamatic's topic in About Objectivism
Message: I exist! Here's me: http://www.barnescatmur.com/ http://www.barnescat...gory/who-we-are And I do stuff like this: http://www.barnescat...e-do/hell-pizza And this: http://www.stoppress...-botab-pay-dirt As well as being married with three kids, surfing or skiing most weekends and that sort of thing, in what little remains of my spare time I occasionally criticise the egregious philosophical theories of Ayn Rand and her more absurd followers. They say a man should have a hobby after all. However to suggest as MSK does that somehow "defines" me only confirms that, as I have long argued, Randians really don't have a clue about definitions...;-) I also have no "public intellectual image." I co-write an obscure blog. If that is enough to take over the planet, then we are all in very big trouble. Cheers D -
What dictionary did Ayn Rand use?
Daniel Barnes replied to MrBenjamatic's topic in About Objectivism
A thousand curses! My army of spies inform me that the brilliant plot conceived by Greg Nyquist, myself, and the shape-changing lizard George Soros to create a One World Government based on the Shariah Protocols of the Elders of the Knights Templar has been uncovered by that indefatigable Inspector Clouseau of philosophic detection, the one and only MSK. Armed with his half-read copy of the ITOE, the towering intellectual insights of Glenn Beck, and the vast, manifold introspections of his own ego he has, like his heroine, once again fearlessly blown the covers off the bottomless evil at the base of every thinker that he's never read. After all, places like Objectivist Living are temples of reason where the New Intellectuals can safely discuss burning questions like "What dictionary did Ayn Rand use?" But BWAHAHAHHA! Our hatred of such greatness for being great remains undiminished! We will return to spread our sweet poison and advocate our Popperian dictatorships anew across the internets! Fly my pretties! To the black helicopters, go!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! -
Try the very first post on this thread.
-
LOL! That's more like the way you invoke "causality" and "identity".
-
The problem is that one leg kicks the other out from under him.
-
This conversation is getting somewhere Brant, albeit somewhat tediously. At least it is in my view. If you disagree, don't play. For a start, you now know that a very commonly held assumption is actually false. But you can continue to hold it by all means - that's a personal decision, not a logical one.
-
Yes, obviously. Yes, obviously. This is getting boring. I agree with Popper on this, and he agrees with Hume. Why don't you stop hiding behind JS Mill's skirts, who in turn is hiding behind the skirts of a false assumption? Do you think if you keep intoning how famous and influential Mill's piece is that will somehow make his conclusions true? The passage you cite is useful, however, as an excellent example of precisely where he goes wrong: In this passage Mill is actually conflating two separate assumptions: A1.The universe is governed by general laws. A2. Inferences from experience (ie inductive inferences) are warranted. Now, what is the difference between these two assumptions? Well, the second one is, via logical analysis, demonstrably false. The first one, however, is not. So this is where Mill at least is going wrong. I fear your case may be more complicated...;-) Oh, and are you going to acknowledge that your "infinite regress" argument was incorrect?