dan2100
-
Posts
950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by dan2100
-
-
Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.
Michael
Agreed. But I'm not so sure that less government is going to remedy your concerns about poor education. I'd probably be less concerned about republicans in office if I didn't think it would filter into the school systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of school systems. Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.
Kelly
But this is an excellent argument to remove government completely from education. It's like you've asked, in the Soviet Union as it was collapsing, "I'd probably be less concerned about Nationalists in office if I didn't think it would filter into the economic systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of the economic system. Can you imagine what production and distribution would be like , right now 1991, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of the economic system in areas like Central Asia or Siberia."
To be sure, yes, I probably won't like decisions made locally, but I'm much more afraid of centrally made decisions -- even when I agree with their content. Why? The form they take is a diktat from on high and the wider lesson they teach is "control the center and you control the whole system and need not worry about that frustrating thing known as individual choice."
-
Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.
Michael
And one word forms my political position: liberty. That implies no government, of course. Those who want government will get less liberty ultimately -- even if that's not what they intend.
-
Thus, contrary to Descartes and other "dogmatic" metaphysicians (i.e., rationalists) who maintained that our senses act as distorting mediums, and that ideal knowledge consists of knowledge uncontaminated by sensory data, Kant defends the authenticity and reliability of empirical knowledge. He does so by distinguishing the form of knowledge from its content. The fact that we perceive reality in a specific form and organize perceptual data in a certain manner, as determined by our sensory and cognitive attributes, does not render our knowledge unreliable.
This I have never understood properly.
How is it that with limited, imperfect, and easily fooled senses that our knowledge can be anything but unreliable?
How do you know that the senses are unreliable or less reliable than, say, the intellect -- presuming the two to be different?
I honestly do not understand the question. I don't think it matters how unreliable they are. The point is simply that if they (senses and/or intellect) are wrong sometimes, they are unreliable. Since this obviously is indeed the case, I don't understand the argument to the contrary (if there is one).
Bob
There's a difference between sense perception and perceptual judgment -- between, say, feeling something to be cold to the touch and judging it to be cold or, with the more classical example, between seeing a stick in water and judging it to be bent. In this sense (pun not intended), the senses merely give evidence; they don't, per se, contain judgments. It is the judgments, though, that might be right or wrong. Think about it this way, one would never say, I think, that a rock is wrong for, say, falling or staying in place on a ledge, but one might be wrong about judging whether the rock will fall or will stay in place. (For example, if you close your eyes, assuming you have roughly normal human eyes, and press on them, you'll see colors, maybe green. Your visual system is literally detecting this, but this is not because it's wrong. You would be wrong, however, to judge that the inside of your eyelids are green. Or so I've been led to believe.)
Moreover, doubt (of any sort) always presupposes a standard by which to doubt something. Typically, the presumed standard for the unreliability of the senses is other evidence of the senses. To stick with the stick in water example, you view the stick out of water and say, "A ha! It's not really bent!" But this means trusting sensorily reliability -- in this case, trusting your eyes when viewing the stick out of water. (I believe David Kelley brought up the example of why no one uses the argument that the same stick in tar looks like part of it no longer exists as a skeptical attack on sense perception: it's too easy to confute.) In this case, as Coppleston (IIRC, in his multivolume history whilst discussing Berkeley) and others have pointed out, it takes sense perception out of context: the stick is always supposed to appear the same regardless of context. (The same criticism can be used against the square tower, the different perceived heat of buckets (put one hand in ice water, another in hot water, then, after a few minutes, place both hands in another bucket of lukewarm water; to one hand it will feel hot, to the other cold), and how objects seem larger as one moves closer to them. All these skeptical arguments presume that some perceived features should remain constant despite varying conditions of perception.)
-
Thus, contrary to Descartes and other "dogmatic" metaphysicians (i.e., rationalists) who maintained that our senses act as distorting mediums, and that ideal knowledge consists of knowledge uncontaminated by sensory data, Kant defends the authenticity and reliability of empirical knowledge. He does so by distinguishing the form of knowledge from its content. The fact that we perceive reality in a specific form and organize perceptual data in a certain manner, as determined by our sensory and cognitive attributes, does not render our knowledge unreliable.
This I have never understood properly.
How is it that with limited, imperfect, and easily fooled senses that our knowledge can be anything but unreliable?
How do you know that the senses are unreliable or less reliable than, say, the intellect -- presuming the two to be different?
-
I agree Michael, and as bad as this current (Obama) administration is I'm actually nearly terrified of the conservative Christian right. The teachings of Christ never seemed to stop the Inquisitors or the Crusaders from boiling people in oil or burning them alive.
Which teachings of Jesus? Reading the Gospels alone, there is some textual support in there for coercing people. Think of Luke 14:23, for example -- and there are others. And this is just focusing on the Gospels -- not the rest of the New Testament, not the Old Testament, and leaving aside whether the Gospels are the actual teachings of Jesus and whether there was such a person in the first place.
And regardless of what Jesus might have taught, most conservative Christians appear to have little or no problem with coercion. Yes, they might talk about personal salvation and individual responsibility, but, in terms of coercion, most of the ones I've talked to or read are not libertarians.
-
Just because the founders might not have followed their own principles doesn't invalidate their principles. Jefferson and Washington owned slaves....does that therefore nullify the Declaration of Independence? This is the most succinct and excellent statement of the non-interventionist position I've seen in a while; note that Objectivist principles of Self-Interest and non-self-sacrifice are heavily implied in this statement.
I don't think anyone here claims that hypocrisy or inconsistency invalidates principles. However, it does mean one should be careful with appealing to the Founders instead of their principles. (The same holds true with any person, including Rand. I would never say, "You should accept Rand's principles because of her character.")
-
> I don't doubt you can find scholars to support your view, as I can find scholars to support mine.
>Name a couple.
Address the main point of my post - about Kant and skepticism.
Would you please state clearly your "main point" "about Kant and skepticism"?
-
While I wish Ron Paul's substantive view were more popular and perhaps embraced as the US government's policy, I think one must be careful to distinguish between some ofthe rhetoric of the Founders and their actual policies and actions.
-
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100714/full/news.2010.351.html
More evidence in favor of a stateless society? You decide...
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/business/media/14indecent.html
A few comments on this. First, yes, there should be no FCC and no government policy on this (and no government, but let's leave that aside for now). But I find it strange that parents before our time lacked the "ability to decide which programs they will permit their children to watch." Maybe some of the older folks here can tell us how, in the past, broadcast media like radio and televesion, were unstoppable save by getting the FCC involved.
Next, I find it extremely hilarious that anyone believes the "F.C.C. has been a critical protector of children’s interests." Who defines those interests? I guess Children Now thinks it should.
-
-
Dan,
Have you read Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe? That book is currently on my list and my brother read it. Kauffman has a renegade theory that the autocatalytic reactions make the origin of life a much more statistically likely event. If I like that book, I'll proceed to his more mathematically intensive Origins of Order.
Jim
Sorry, I haven't read that one yet, so I can't provide much in the way of informed commentary on it.
-
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0742551172
I'm about 30 pages into this one. Wanted to read more of it on the flight back, but was too tied.
Anyhow, basic idea: the Sun is behind the current warming trend and this is part of a roughly 1500 year cycle -- hence the subtitle. They present several independent lines to back this claim.
Extensively footnoted, so anyone with access to Nature, Science, etc. should be able to weigh their evidence -- well, at least what they cite. The book is also full of charts and graphs, some more helpful than others.
That sounds too frequent for the Malinkovitch cycle.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I don't want to Google at the moment -- but aren't Malinkovitch cycles around 100K years (and have to do with the Earth's orbital variations)? The authors do not -- I don't have the book handy at the moment (still in my luggage) -- make the claim it's Malinkovitch cycles. And Malinkovitch cycles aren't the only cycles involved in climate, no?
The are several natural (non man made) cycles involved in climate changes.
Yes, or that's my understanding.
Orbital variations, variations in the tilt of the earth relative to the plane of ecliptic, variations in cosmic rays which affect cloud formation. Clouds are vary potent drivers for temperature change. There is variation in solar radiation output. There is the famous eleven year variation in sunspots. When the sunspot activity goes down, solar output goes down. During the last mini-ice age sunspot activity all but disappeared.
I located the book again and it looks like they mean two much shorter solar cycles combine to form a longer one of about 1,500 years. This is overlaid on the much longer and more powerful cycles. More on this later.
The problem is that the current fixation on CO2, which is politically motivated has lead away from giving the natural drivers of climate change their due weight. There are no doubt that climate is changing. It always is changing. The question is, are the main drivers to climate change human activities?
Ba'al Chatzaf
Agreed. I also think the sort of panic mentality now reigning makes it very hard for most to reasonably evaluate the differing views here. (And this pattern is rampant. Think of any political policy and how it's offered up as needing to be implemented immediately without debate or discussion.)
-
How much do you expect from a book on physics with only four equations?
One of which no doubt is A = A.
Seriously, what are the four equations?
Has anyone here, aside from me, read Penrose's massive tome -- the one abounding in equations, the one that might as function as a grand tour of mathematics?
I read the Big Penrose Book. It is loaded to the gills with equations some of them involving tensors and other linear forms.
Yes, but he works up to those in a way that I think the diligent reader might be able to handle.
I would expect a book which dealt with the inductive/abductive aspects of physics to include the Maxwell Equations for electrodynamics, some of the equations of classical mechanics derived from the action principle. That would include D'Alemberts equations for virtual work, the Euler-Langrange equations. I would expect some of the basic equations from relativity theory (special relativity) and of course the Schroedinger wave equations and related stuff. And at least a passing reference to Noether's theorem and the relation between the symmetries and conservation laws.
Ba'al Chatzaf
I'd expect some of this, but I don't think a heavy mathematical treatment is necessary. (In fact, much philosophy of physics avoids this -- even, in my opinion, excellent works such as those of Lawrence Sklar on spacetime stuff do, such as his classic Space, Time, and Spacetime.)
-
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0742551172
I'm about 30 pages into this one. Wanted to read more of it on the flight back, but was too tied.
Anyhow, basic idea: the Sun is behind the current warming trend and this is part of a roughly 1500 year cycle -- hence the subtitle. They present several independent lines to back this claim.
Extensively footnoted, so anyone with access to Nature, Science, etc. should be able to weigh their evidence -- well, at least what they cite. The book is also full of charts and graphs, some more helpful than others.
That sounds too frequent for the Malinkovitch cycle.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I don't want to Google at the moment -- but aren't Malinkovitch cycles around 100K years (and have to do with the Earth's orbital variations)? The authors do not -- I don't have the book handy at the moment (still in my luggage) -- make the claim it's Malinkovitch cycles. And Malinkovitch cycles aren't the only cycles involved in climate, no?
-
Back to this thread's initial topic. I had heard that the Harriman book was promoted as containing groundbreaking new solutions to age-old philosophical problems. Was that total bullshit?
J
How much do you expect from a book on physics with only four equations?
Ba'al Chatzaf
Exactly how many equations are required for you to take a book seriously? Is there a minimum number?
I was under the impression that Harriman's book is about the philosophy of physics (and possibly the philosophy of science generally), in which case oodles of equations may or may not be relevant. In any case, I find it curious that people are so eager to dismiss a book that they haven't even looked at, much less read.
Ghs
For the record, I'm not dismissing Harriman's book. I hope to at least listen to the audiobook version of it this summer.
I was merely curious about which four equations were in the book.
-
How much do you expect from a book on physics with only four equations?
One of which no doubt is A = A.
Seriously, what are the four equations?
Has anyone here, aside from me, read Penrose's massive tome -- the one abounding in equations, the one that might as function as a grand tour of mathematics?
I'll put in a bet for F=ma as one of them.
I bet you're right. I did listen to an excerpt from the audiobook version and it was praising Newton as the seal of the prophets for physics. (Actually, not that I'd disagree: Newton was brilliant and probably had the major impact on physics for the new few centuries if not up until today.)
Dan, if you're talking about the Road to Reality I'm impressed. I've picked at it here and there, but no I haven't read it.
Jim
Yes, The Road to Reality. I think it's a fairly good mathematical introduction to physics, including some recent theories (he doesn't just end with "and them came quantum weirdness"). I recommend it, but one has to be willing to put in the effort to understand the math.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172
I'm about 30 pages into this one. Wanted to read more of it on the flight back, but was too tied.
Anyhow, basic idea: the Sun is behind the current warming trend and this is part of a roughly 1500 year cycle -- hence the subtitle. They present several independent lines to back this claim.
Extensively footnoted, so anyone with access to Nature, Science, etc. should be able to weigh their evidence -- well, at least what they cite. The book is also full of charts and graphs, some more helpful than others.
-
How much do you expect from a book on physics with only four equations?
One of which no doubt is A = A.
Seriously, what are the four equations?
Has anyone here, aside from me, read Penrose's massive tome -- the one abounding in equations, the one that might as function as a grand tour of mathematics?
-
We don't need to go into the details. All of us seem to agree. Rational awareness cannot see behind the cloak of unconscious thinking, and that thinking massively influences our motivation to believe, disbelieve, or disregard information (with post-hoc rational justification).
But in what specific ways? Also, this is far different than the usual view offered up of innate ideas. I also wouldn't use it merely to explain away aspects of a given thinker you disagree with or for faults you find in a given system.
-
I haven't read that one. Why did you think it was garbage?
My experience: page after page saying to myself what the hell is this? Just detached drug induced ramblings, with nothing enjoyable or enlightening mixed in, and no plot to speak of. There's supposed to be a good dose of humor, but I wasn't getting it. Sudden, seemingly random jumps. It's kind of like Tropic of Cancer meets Finnegan's Wake, but not as evocative or erudite as the comparison would suggest. Gravity's Rainbow bears some comparison to it also, but with Pynchon there's a payoff for the effort, and the process is usually enjoyable.
It didn't help that the person telling me I must try this book later chided me that I was just too rational for it. Anyway, I gave up, so I don't want to suggest I have more knowledge of WSB than I do.
Thanks. I'd have to read that novel to see if I have the same reaction. And, I recall liking the Cities of the Red Night novels. I think I devoured all three in less than a month.
-
I have been on juries. One one is selected to the jury one takes an oath to abide by the Judge's instruction and to judge the case purely on the evidence presented in court. To judge the law would violate the oath. What a juror can do without violating his oath is to hang the jury which means a possible retrial.
it is possible for a jury to ignore the law and refuse to vote guilty, but that is not the function of a jury. The jury exists to judge the case according to the facts which become known in the course of the trial.
Ba'al Chatzaf
I'd judge the law too in spite of any oath I took. Of course if I started arguing in deliberations that the law was wrong or evil and the verdict should be "Not Guilty," someone on the jury might send a note to the judge and get me removed from the jury. The principle of jury nullification, though, is one of the legal principles this country was built on going back to colonial times. The court's instructions to judge the evidence only is dictatorial arrogance of the first order and completely common. Juries are supreme respecting a not-guilty verdict.
--Brant
Yes, and oaths not freely entered into are not really oaths anyway.
-
On light of Woods' book on Nullification -- http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490 -- I wonder where participants here stand on nullification, including jury nullification.
-
Heck, they are both great reads and don't take long (although you find yourself wanting to come back and back over time). These are two very, very good books--her tone, the way she lays things out. Very patient, pure, passionate. I liked The Virtue of Selfishness for the last of those qualities--it is a very inspirational book.
Just a minor point: she didn't write either of the books in toto. They are compilations of her writings along with those of Nathaniel Branden and others.
I also think 30 pages into The Virtue of Selfishness you'll know much more about Objectivism and Rand's thinking than 30 pages into any of her big novels.
And most people I've talked tend to read nonfiction more critically than fiction. So I feel one is more likely to get a thoughful reaction rather than someone merely adoring the heroic portrayals and falling for the emotional impact. There's, of course, nothing wrong with the latter -- and it's not entirely absent from the nonfiction. But, in my experience, most people tend to approach nonfiction in a different way than fiction.
I guess it just depends on how much time you have for reading. Also, if you do a little poking around (which is distractingly fun), you will find all kinds of forum discussions on OL about this, and related topics. The people here love to chew on the ideas, and do it well. This forum has come into maturity very nicely. It's been a few years now, and I must say that it is one heck of an archive.
I wouldn't denigrate forums, including this one. But a big problem with coming to a knowledge of Rand or Objectivism via a forum -- and this applies to any thinker or system of philosophy -- is that, I feel, it's no substitute for reading the core works. It's an excellent way to broaden or deepen one's knowledge, but I believe it's not the best introduction.
Of course, this probably depends much on the person entering the fray. But my experience has been coming across people who are completely unfamiliar with the ideas and then get exposed with some debates on a forum come away with a tiny grab bag view of the philosophy. And rarely, if they don't work at it and read the core works, are they able to do much with it.
But the boys are both right: reading those two books would be icing on the cake if you have what you have. That is typical. See, it is so much better nowadays. You used to have to really scramble to get stuff...you'd wait around, look around. Borrow and share copies. It got a lot easier somewhere around the nineties.
Enjoy!
rde
I've never known a time when Rand's main works weren't readily available from a variety of sources. I could see if we were talking about some more obscure works by some lesser known lights in the libertarian movement, but Rand has almost always been easily available, no?
Why I vote democrat
in 4 - Politics
Posted
My analogy is not so far off. Public education today is somewhat like Soviet central planning. Yes, not exactly the same -- analogies are not meant to be exactly the same.
As for public education in the US, it did not always exist -- at least not in every state. It's really only in the late 19th century, if my memory's correct, that the movement for public education picked up steam -- and then it was partly based on indoctrinating all those immigrants who weren't of English, Scottish, or German Protestant backgrounds.
I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did.
You're right, of course, about increasing federal involvement. And while I applaud attempts to roll back federal control, all of this just strikes me as re-arranging deck chairs while the ship sinks. For me the central problems with public education is that it's public and that it's mandatory. As long as those features remain in place, you'll have to worry about who controls the national government. This was my point in bringing up the analogy: the problem isn't so much federal mucking it up versus state mucking it up -- though, to be fair, I bet fifty states each plotting their own educational course is bound to have better results more times than one federal plan. At least, if there's some diversity among the states, one would expect some of them to get lucky, whereas one centralized authority is about as likely to get as likely 1/50th the time on average.
I'm only for a voluntary standard. I see no value in forcing people to adhere to some educational mantra merely because there's a fad or because it makes us all one big community.
This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?