bmacwilliam

A pitcher with a good curve ball would disagree.

Then, three different set of eyes, with common 'malfunctions' can transfer three completely different and flawed datasets, BEFORE brain processing, yet all three are "accurate and faithful". There are no apparent limits to this 'flawedness', yet the data is somehow "accurate and faithful"? Again, this is before processing. The Objectivist claims are false. Bob

Doesn't deny anything... Our senses, aided by intruments at times and logic, help guide us to ever-more-reliable conclusions. That's what's "obvious" to me. Bob

A myopic person sees things differently than a hyperopic, and yet other distortions are inherent with astigmatism; all due to physical construction of the eye before any data reaches the brain. Dennis wrote: "The only unreliability factor has to do with mistakes in perceptual judgment." Well, here we have three totally different "unreliability factors" BEFORE perception. Yet the data is all "correct"? Hardly. That would be a contradiction, clearly. "That's when we get "fooled"--when we make wrong assumptions." Wrong. This is transparent (no pun intended) nonsense. Bob

I'm so hurt.... I only responded because you were clearly wrong, but more importantly, you were snootily and erroneously complaining about snootiness. You know, the old "he doth protest too much" thing. Just like you whine about bullying, while bullying. You complain about lack of 'ideas' while ignoring ideas. And this type of list is very long. I don't like you one bit either - I'm sure you're shocked. Bob

Here's an Aristotle quote especially applicable for Michael so it seems... Aristotle wrote: "The brain is an organ of minor importance, perhaps necessary to cool the blood."

Hint: Galileo had to prove that Aristotle was totally full of crap to move science forward....

Plant sex Inertia Falling bodies Heavenly bodies Gallileo Democritus "not for ideas" Hmm.... Facts, those annoying facts and inconvenient evidence still causing you trouble in your fantasy world eh? Answer this "idea". Did Galileo succeed in moving science a giant leap forward because of Aristotle, or in spite of him? Which one is it? Bob

Stupid? No. Ignorant and/or denying reality? Clearly. Snooty? No. Simply correct. There is nothing snooty about concluding that so many fundamental errors in physics, strongly clung to by an almost unimaginable authority of his 'word' alone delayed progress for millenia. This is just a simple fact. Bob

That's a pretty snooty theory if I ever read one. And Popper does not give one iota of evidence that "the Aristotelian method of definition" was the cause impeding progress, not just here or there, but in "every discipline," or that getting rid of it was the historical cure (or any other kind of cure for that matter). Instead, he uses a rhetorical device called presupposition. He states his claim as if it were an unquestionable fact. But it merely rests on his pet theory and nothing else. That's both theory-laden and snooty-laden. Michael Couldn't possibly be more wrong. Popper is dead-on correct. He is attacking (and righteously so) this exact problem you accuse him of - taking someone's word as an unquestionable fact. What? Is it opposite day or something? "And Popper does not give one iota of evidence" If you were not so obviously and profoundly scientifically illiterate you would know that he doesn't have to. Anybody with any exposure whatsoever to science would know this. And we're not talking about just physics. IIRC, he 'proclaimed' that plants do not have sexes, and it took MORE THAN 2000 years after his death to overcome this nonsense. This is just a tiny single example of his many fundamental errors. Science had to break his deathgrip on thought before it could move forward in the slightest. Not that this was his fault or intention, but that's not relevant. Century after century after century, his ideas were accepted unquestioned as if they were God's own. His physics errors were absolutely fundamental and deadly wrt progress - do you need evidence? There is an abundance - inertia, speed of falling bodies, heavenly bodies (only seven fixed ones) and on and on and on. This is not "presentism", his ideas were simply wrong and had great influence, that's all, and that was very bad. These errors HAD to be overcome for progress to happen - not a value judgment, just a fact - and if you can do basic arithmetic you'll see that 1500 years is a low estimate. Galileo dropped stuff from the tower of Pisa 1900 years later after he was turfed from the university for questioning Aristotle's ideas!! Oh yeah, what about Aristotle's effect on Democratis' ideas on matter? Hmm.... If there was no Aristotle, we'd have colonized the stars by now. Bob

"Rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues." ..."The virtue of rationality means the recognition and accceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full mental focus in all issues, in all choices..." That's from the horse's mouth, Bob - because what you are trying to do is reduce a complete, complex, and integrated concept, to Logic 101 - and failing. You know Virtue of Selfishness, don't you? Well, read this chapter "The Objectivist Ethics" again, and that's all you will ever need to understand concerning O'ist morality. You haven't read it? then what am I doing discussing it with you? I am not here to educate you, if you don't show enough respect to comprehend basic Objectivism, before attacking it. Do some reading before we talk some more. Tony Tony, Rand's position or quote is hardly relevant. I've criticized what you've said. That being said, Rand commits the fallacy too. Your reasoning is in line with hers, but it's not on full display above. But that's not "keeping on track". I've read it, indeed I've read it, but apparently I was conscious while doing so. "a complete, complex, and integrated concept" rests on a huge obvious fallacy. If it fails the most basic "Logic 101" test, it fails completely. There's a reason Objectivism isn't taken seriously by academics Tony. It's like the WWE is to wrestling. Pretend Philosophy for morons. Bob

"I don't make the positive claim for a link between the moral and rational. The burden of proof is on you." Posturing? Bad-ass? Pointless? Pathetic? No. Factual. Emotionless. Clear point. Pathetically straightforward. Curious... Must not be speaking the same language or something... Bob

Tony, Not just you. Michael, Brant, Mikee and others also fail to distinguish this. I'd really really like to know how many of these characters took (or passed) Logic 101. Seriously. Bob

Bob doesn't see the distinction. That a bank robber could be simultaneously logical - he'd have to be to survive for long - and irrational. ie, his existence depends upon unreality, the unearned. Logic is our major tool toward rationality. Logic is not morality. I'm pretty sure Josef Stalin was highly logical. I understand the distinction quite clearly. But you cannot say that Stalin was irrational because he was immoral. Why? Because your definition of 'rational' requires or assumes morality. This is not wrong. Tony, again, THIS. IS. NOT. WRONG. This is illegal. That's the distinction you need to understand. The argument is illegal. Logic 101 - quite literally - Logic 101. Bob

This made me chuckle. It reminds me of 'Liar Liar' where Jim Carrey's son (or daughter?) asks him: "Daddy, is it true that beauty is only skin deep?" Carrey "No, that's just something ugly people say". No Mikee, you misunderstand. Quite the opposite. Since this is Objectivism and not 'Whimsicalism' I'd like proof, not fallacies or emotional arguments. I don't make the positive claim for a link between the moral and rational. The burden of proof is on you. Waaa, waaaa, waaaa....So mean......

Whynot said it well. Why don't you take a crack at enlightening me as to why this statement above is not petitio principii? Another simple question. No games, no trap, right back on track. Bob

Listen, I'll stop playing games here. The question is an obvious trap, and I know it, you know it, and anybody with more than one brain cell knows it. You/he avoid it because you can't wiggle your way out. So Brant resorts to name-calling to deflect. Now he's offended?? Bullshit. Bull...frigging...shit. He's avoiding, and so are you. WhyNot wrote "A gain of any sort - logically arrived at, or not - that conflicts with one's convictions of reality and one's self-worth, is immoral and irrational. (Redundantly.)" Classic, outright, undeniable, blantant, bold-faced Petitio Principii. This should be in the definition of the term it's so damn good. This argument is dead as a friggin' doornail and so is Objectivist Ethics. You don't like looking at the truth Mr Stuart Kelly, that much is painfully clear. Bob

dupe, damn...

You're a chicken shit, Brant. Bob: You cannot be this shallow... Adam, But Bob is this shallow. Every discussion of his always goes back to his kindergarten name-calling and taunting. That is the true point of his discussion--his payoff, not anything dealing with using his brain. It's like the law of causality. Once people get roped into discussing ideas seriously with him, it's only a matter of time before he does this crap. And it never fails. Michael ""arrogant proposition" "top of your nothing hill" "don't yet deserve a conversation" ..... "chicken shit" Reality must be a real bitch for you Michael. Why don't you answer the question too? Bob

...

You do not have the courage to answer the question, do you? Bob

You're a chicken shit, Brant.

So... Pragmatically Logical != Rational Because: Rational = Logic + Morality Right? Simple question. Yes, no? Bob

Precisely, you wouldn't, because you understand rational morality. I think half the problem in this sort of debate is not distinguishing clearly between the rational and the pragmatically logical. So... Pragmatically Logical != Rational Because: Rational = Logic + Morality Right? Bob

dupe.