tjohnson

I think there is a fundamental flaw in attempting to measure global warming with air temperatures - which is why I posted the link a while back. We should be much more concerned with water temperatures of the oceans. The fact that air temperatures have not risen like the model predicted does not mean the planet's total heat storage is not growing.

What about the data that says the oceans are heating up? After all, water holds many orders of magnitude more heat than air and so is a much better indicator of global warming than air temperatures. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Every currency has fraud problems and crytocurrencies would probably be no exception. At this point it looks much more difficult than with ordinary currencies. Also; See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page

Micheal, Baal, and Selene -

It seems to me that bitcoin is backed by the internet and computers in general. So by investing in them you are more or less saying you think we are going to have this hugely connected world for some time to come. I was shocked to see I could buy some shoes online with bitcoin the other day. Its no more a pyramid scheme than any other currency, in fact, it doesn't seem to be able to be devalued by over production like other currencies.

Dean, thank you for all the very well thought out posts on this interesting topic. What do think about Litecoin and all the other cryptocurrencies?

Excellent points. Ultimately, mankind needs to become more rational about himself but it is a "long and winding road". Objectivism is just one of countless attempts to achieve this.

It's because 'reason' is such a vague notion that you can't build a system on it.

It is for the most part presently, but when that changes we may see some real progress in man's social problems.

If "philosophers" want to argue about what 'concepts', 'logic', 'causation', and other terms mean forever then I say let them, whatever turns you on. But when they venture into how humans should behave (ethics) then it is not harmless babble anymore because some people may actually listen and that could be dangerous. This is the science of sanity and it is a very new field with virtually no one working in it as yet. It is interesting that N. Branden left mainstream Objectivism it seems because he understood the importance of sanity and realized it was something that needed to be addressed.

I admire free thinkers as well, but even more so, I admire sane thinkers. For what is the use of free thinking if the free thinker is crazy as a loon?

There is something you should know. It is not difficult to understand meaningless statements, it's impossible. Also, it's a gigantic waste of time to even attempt to understand them.

It is not conceptually difficult (for me) to imagine a finite yet unbounded universe. It seems clear to me that since we know light doesn't travel in straight lines in the presence of gravitational fields then it must eventually come full circle, if you will. It would be impossible to navigate your way out of the universe under these circumstances. Indeed, it is the infinite universe that doesn't make sense and (to me) psychologically uncomfortable.

It is curious, is it not, that Blanshard can hold the supposedly vacuous and tautological view of causation defended by Joseph and yet articulate anything but a simplistic view of particular causes and effects. This is even more curious when you learn that the latter is dependent on, and arises from, the former. If you were curious why I get so sharp and impatient with the philosophic ignoramuses on OL who make grandiose pronouncements without having read any of this material, now you know why. Ghs This discussion of Blanshard shows why modern science uses statistical methods and speaks about correlation rather than causation. These philosophers would be better of simply studying statistics instead of spinning their verbal tires like this.

LOL, I used to read encyclopedias for hours on end. It was fascinating. Surfing the net is totally different since its linked by subject matter whereas the encyclopedia is alphabetic.

Notice this passage, "If a thing a under conditions c produces a change x in a subject s ". Here is single cause => single effect in action. This type of thinking is not scientific anymore, although at one time it was.

On scientific and mathematical matters I would rate Wiki 9.5 out of 10. On political matters it is too wide open to corruption and pollution so I do not rely on it at all. On historical matters I would rate wike 8 to 8.5 out of 10. It is a good starting place to look since it gives references to the literature and other web sites. Ba'al Chatzaf I agree, its a good starting place for a general overview.

I don't believe there is any such thing, Theodore. I have not seen all the Objectivists here to agree on it, if it does exist. But this is not uncommon, in every movement (including general semantics) there are passionate people who embrace it and argue incessantly for years. I have experienced this elsewhere and I see it here. The thing about general semantics is it is supposed to enable agreement and it is extremely ironic when you see general semanticists arguing about what general semantics "is" etc. I am not surprised to see it here, however, since Objectivism, in its quest for certainty, is perfectly positioned for this sort of behaviour, in fact, encourages it. Think Objectivist rage.

LOL, don't go Brant, I miss your erudition.

It's not important what it's called, ie. an object, entity, unit, etc. What's important is separating what is inside our skin and what is outside. There is "something" out there but the thing we know and call 'chair' is in here. Now obviously the 2 are related, and this relation is similarity of structure.

the Objectivist position, in this regard, is what is often referred to as "naive realism". It asserts that we can know objects directly whereas science tells us that we can only know abstractions directly. A pain is very particular, not abstract and is known directly. Ba'al Chatzaf Pain is very particular, yes, but it is not what I was talking about. All I am saying is that we cannot know objects (outside our skin) directly, we can only know abstractions of them.

This is exactly the simplistic, outdated view of causality I was speaking about with George.

the Objectivist position, in this regard, is what is often referred to as "naive realism". It asserts that we can know objects directly whereas science tells us that we can only know abstractions directly.

Nonsense. You can point to a piece of furniture, such as a sofa. Suppose Joe says, "Let's move the furniture out of the bedroom so we can paint there next." The furniture Joe refers to is merely in his brain? Lets avoid confusion. I enclose the word with single quotes when I refer to the abstraction and not the object. The movers pick up and move furniture, not 'furniture'.

And another thing, even 'chair' refers to a generalization, abstraction, class, etc. of all the individual things we call 'chairs'.