Samson Corwell

I don't belief in rights as important components of a moral theory.

Fid she ever read Oakeshott?

Neither.

What was this "pitfall"?

What an Objectivist answer. I didn't say what is right is different for different people (oddly enough, Objectivism does say so (sort of)).

No, every law is an imposition of value on those who disagree with it. Just as the current system is an imposition on libertarians, a libertarian system would be an imposition on non-libertarians who would find their views excluded from the public sphere.

A utilitarian standard may be the wrong one, but is none the less NOT morally subjectivist. Unless, you are using "subjectivist" in the Randian sense of "that which I have no other criticism for".

False antecendent (I think). "f the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery." — Thomas Aquinas

And is egoism any less "arbitrary"?

Well, the desired separation is certainly impossible, but for different reasons. Political institutions dictate what form a society will take, so there really isn't any separation between "government" on one hand and "the economy" on the other. In laissez-faise, there is a set of laws that outline what is and is not permissible, and these laws are imposed on others who very well may want different ones. As to "crony capitalism", I do not like to use it. Some call patents an instance of "crony capitalism" and justify this label by stating that patents only exist through "state intervention" when the same is true of normal property. I can also imagine some opponents of laissez-faire referring to privatization and deregulation as cronyism, as well.

This coming from the man who calls morality "doxa".

How long has this back-and-forth over science between you and Bob been going on for? It appears to me that you and him have been at it for at least six years, but I get the feeling it might be longer.

What are some of these insights of theirs?

This has bothered me. If the fact that we cannot "conduct controlled experiments" is the problem, then shouldn't this also rule out astronomy as an empirical science. After all, all we have are observations, much like economic history. And why does the "singular facts do not come attached with their own meanings" not also apply to astronomy (or any of the other "hard" sciences)? Didn't Popper say something about fact (or maybe it was observations) being theory-laden?

Sorry! I meant younger.

You look older in your picture.

I actually haven't read it. I have read what Krauss says he does (or claims to do) and I've read/heard the ideas of his that he put into the book. He claims that physics can explain why there is "something" instead of "nothing". His explanation boils down to: the conditions in quantum fields (or something of the sort) are such that they give rise to particles and space. That's a fine explanation—if he were explaining why there are particles instead of just quantum stuff. The giant hole: quantum fields are something rather than nothing. His explanation doesn't address that big question at all.

You are correct that it is not a problem with the "hard" sciences (I recognize no such distinction). It is a problem with falsificationism.

You cannot say that one scientific theory has a problem without having other scientific theories that are taken to be confirmed, and falsification does not provide a way to confirm theories.

One gaping hole in falsification is that it needs a theory on what constitutes confirmation.

Krauss is of the same mentality as Bob. His book A Universe from Nothing was a train wreck and his response to criticisms of it was that science, unlike philosophy, is "useful". Given that Bob's tact, which you've ridiculed as nonsense (which I agree with), is almost identical to Krauss', him writing the foreword is perplexing.

Anyone familiar with it? Anyone find it convincing? I've become partial to Berkley's metaphysics in the past few years. I've gotten the impression that it is more in line with Aristotle than Locke's dualist empiricism.

I'd go with "travellling", but it seems that a single L is also acceptable, as with a word like "labelling"/"labeling".

Ain't that a kick. Happens to my spell checker, too.

LP or LTV: which one is philosophically worse?