tjohnson

Here is a definition of 'ethics'; "the branch of philosophy concerned with evaluating human action. Some distinguish ethics, what is right or wrong based on reason, from morals, what is considered right or wrong behavior based on social custom" Notice how 'right', 'wrong', and 'morals' are part of the definition. Here is another one; "the philosophical study of moral values and rules" Now here is a definition of 'morals'; "ethics, the codes, values, principles, and customs of a person or society" And another; "ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" Notice how the definitions are circular? The terms 'right', 'wrong', 'ethics' and 'morals' are all intertwined and used to define each other. In order to have a meaningful discussion about this subject one needs to accept some or all of these terms as undefined and simply trust that others know what is meant by them. One can argue ad infinitum about what words mean but one is just "spinning his wheels" doing this.

I think you are missing the point - you don't get 4 gallons, because of the interaction betwenn the molecules you get somewhat less than 4 gallons. So 2+2=4 doesn't apply here. Well, I have had enough of this forum, thanks for listening as much as you did, but I can't seem to get through to anyone here so have a nice life!

That is more or less my point! Even something as simple as 2+2=4 only works relatively well in applied math, but works perfectly in pure mathematics. This is entirely general.

Mixing is not adding. In combinatorics addition is a kind of set formation. If you have sets A, B each with two distinct individuals and such that A and B are disjoint, then the union of A and B will have four elements. Ba'al Chatzaf Very true, but the 'union' of 2 gallons of water and 2 'gallons' of alcohol will not result in 4 gallons. All you have done is switched 'added' with 'unionized' ??

GS, This is not a misunderstanding. It would help a lot if you learned the Objectivist concepts, then compared and criticized, instead of just repeating the GS ones without understanding the Objectivist ones. Michael Well I have read a large number of posts from people whom I assume to be quite knowledgeable about said concepts and I see this (alleged) confusion repeatedly. So either these people are not so knowledgeable or this view is actually part and parcel of O'ism. (how's that for 2-value logic Please feel free to come over to the GS list and debate with them; http://www.learn-gs.org/cgi-bin/boards/discus.cgi?pg=topics

Just for clarification; 'Add' means something in natural language, like whe we are baking we 'add' ingredients. In mathematics we don't 'add' numbers we associate a third number with the first 2. It may be different (1,2)=>3 or it may be the same (1,0)=>1. This is purely associative and nothing whatsoever to do with physical quantities.

Ouch! So what exactly do you mean when you say "Add two of anything to two of anything else, and you have four things," ? What do you mean by "adding" because next you say you are going to leave them side by side in their buckets so you haven't 'added" them, they are just sitting there?? So 2 gallons of water and 2 gallons of alcohol = 2 gallons of water and 2 gallons of alcohol? OK, I agree with that.

2+2=4 is ALWAYS true in mathematics but 2 things and 2 things is NOT ALWAYS true in experience. 2 gallons of water and 2 gallons of alcohol will not give you 4 gallons of the mixture.

If I might add more novel approach to the whole 'what science does' argument from Korzybski. What scientists do, in general, is attempt to create verbal "maps" (theories) of natural phenomena. Using the map analogy is very helpful because we all know that maps can start out crude as with explorers and over time become very accurate. In principle there is no limit as to how accurate a map can become - the detail merely increases. Similarly with physics, for example, we each new development the theory gives us more and more detail but it is never "true" - there will always be room for improvement. So the concept of a theory being true or false does not apply in natural language, only mathematics. Popper's main contribution is the notion of falsifiability, which means that unless a theory can be expressed in such a way so that it's predicted results can be compared with some experimental results then it really is a mere intellectual curiosity.

2+2=4 is not arrived at by reason it is defined as such in mathematics. Almost all of the arguments on this list have their roots in a misunderstanding of the nature of mathematics - the difference between mathematical and natural language. I am only trying to help some understand I have nothing against Rand or anyone else but it's quite possible that Rand and others that followed did not recognize this difference and perhaps you could save alot of grief by coming to terms with it.

Yes, but it only represents 2%-6% of the world GDP (depending on the price of oil). But a country NEEDS energy to function so this 2-6% is critical. Looking at a statistic like this disguises the relative importance of each commodity. What good is it having food if I can't ship it to market and the people can't get to market to buy it etc.

What if he decided NOT to develop and sell the oil under Iraq? The economy of the world depends on (relatively) cheap energy. It will be expensive to develop alternative sources so we put it off because if it is expensive it means a lowering of the standard of living which is a political disaster. But soon it will cost more to keep the oil supply flowing than it will to develop alternative energy sources and other technologies anyway.

Yikes! You consider philosophy a science?

Sorry about that, it's short compared to Science &Sanity , which is also available at that site but I don't recommend that unless you plan to spend a year or so reading it. It has to be one of the most exhaustive works ever written, the bibliography contains 619 entries in 6 languages covering every aspect of science in 1933. It was 12 years in the making. Not sure why you interpret that to mean "In other words, induction is for primitives and deduction is for educated people."? What do you think the main aim of science is? Time-binding is not simply passing on knowledge from one generation to the next - it is building on previous knowledge. Many animals pass on knowledge but they can't build on it and essentially grow it exponentially. You know if you replaced valid concept with useful concept I think I could agree with you. But I feel that 'concept' is a rather vague term at any rate. I usually replace 'concept' with 'formulation' in my mind when I read it or hear it. I can understand a visualization (like of a cat) and a definition of a cat are different so maybe you equate 'visualization' with 'concept'?

Was there ever any doubt??

You know a good example of people doing things without any obvious benefit to themselves is the open source software movement. I can't believe the work done and published free online by volunteers all over the world! I do web development for a living and I use free software on all my platforms and it works better than anything you can buy, for the most part. This site uses PHP and Apache 1.3.37 (time to upgrade ) which is free software. I am using Debian linux on my PC and Firefox for browsing - all free thanks to countless individuals in the open source community.

We classify however it suits our purpose. In Korzybski's definition (classification) of man as a time-binder he had a reason to do so. He believed that it was crucial to mankind for us to define and think of ourselves as something very different from an animal, even a rational animal, so he came up with a definition to do just that. To understand WHY he thought this I recommend his short initial publication, Manhood of Humanity, available online here; http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/manhood.htm We can make whatever classifications (definitions) we want - man could be a 'featherless biped' if we want, this seems obvious to me. No matter what definition we use the important thing to realize is that there will always be cases where is is not clear if an individual fits the definition or not, except in mathematics.

No argument here, 'essentials' are meaningless to me, but classification is necessary in any language. We need to classify but we can't delude ourselves into thinking that these classifications are cut and dried, 2-valued affairs, except in mathematics.

And sometimes the benefit is that it just makes one feel good that they helped, no matter what the outcome. Besides, an act of kindness may be resented at first but appreciated later on, you never know. If it feels good do it!

Vaguely.

That's unfortunate

Capitalism used to mean something different than it does now. "Although nowadays there are ideological capitalists - people who support a set of ideas about the economic benefits and importance of "free markets" - the term capitalism was first used to describe an the system of private investment and industry with little governmental control which emerged, without an ideological basis, in the Netherlands and Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. A "capitalist" was an individual who invested money (or capital) in a given business venture." and simply "An economic system based on the exchange of capital." It is often thought of as an opposing view to 'communism' which does not make ontological sense since both communism and democracy use capital (money, bonds, etc) in their economic systems. The difference lies in their rules of ownership and use of the resources symbolized by the capital.

Only in mathematics, it's impossible in natural language since all characteristics cannot be included in definitions.

'Pickiness' ?? LOL Seriously John, it establishes that language is built on undefined terms whether we like it or not. It is these undefined terms that act as "axioms" in the sense that we cannot question them any further - you either know what I mean or you do not.

Korzybski addressed this problem by using a functional definition of man. He defined man as a time-binding class of life, which means man has the [potential] ability for one generation to build on the knowledge from previous generations. This definition creates a sharp distinction from animals.