Keys to Success

[Philip Coates]

It's taking me a long time to wade through the huge number of his posts George linked me to in post 113.

I'm still not through, but I want to apologize for calling him in effect a blowhard on the topic of induction and to withdraw my post 112 and the laundry list of charges I made in it.

{I won't delete that post, but will leave it up there because you have to own your foolish charges and leave them as part of the record not rewrite history: embarrassment is a penalty for making rash claims and incentive to try not to keep doing it}.

It's clear from all those posts that he made on these threads: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, New Developments re Harriman Induction book, Logical Leap, Eating Dirt etc. -- that GHS is impressively well-read in the area of induction and the philosophy of science, that he understands many central issues. And is thoughtful about them.

I can also see more clearly why he claims the problem of induction has "already having been solved" by previous thinkers. I disagree with that. More broadly, I agree with some of his specific conclusions and points and not with others.

[9thdoctor]

It's taking me a long time to wade through the huge number of his posts George linked me to in post 113.

I'm still not through, but I want to apologize for calling him in effect a blowhard on the topic of induction and to withdraw my post 112 and the laundry list of charges I made in it.

{I won't delete that post, but will leave it up there because you have to own your foolish charges and leave them as part of the record not rewrite history: embarrassment is a penalty for making rash claims and incentive to try not to keep doing it}.

It's clear from all those posts that he made on these threads: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, New Developments re Harriman Induction book, Logical Leap, Eating Dirt etc. -- that GHS is impressively well-read in the area of induction and the philosophy of science, that he understands the major issues. And that is thoughtful about them.

I can also see more clearly why he claims the problem of induction has "already having been solved" by previous thinkers and that he would be able to state why if challenged. I disagree with that, however. More broadly, I agree with some of his specific conclusions and points and not with others.

What have you done with the real Phil? We can tell an imposter a mile off. And if you think we're going to pay a ransom to get him back, you've got another thing coming.

[Selene]

Inductively, we have not seen the real Rich Engle posting recently because of some music mirage cover story. We have the mysterious deaths of two (2) giants of the music rhythm and blues industry and we have this "phil coates" clone emerging.

Therefore, clearly Rich has used the life energy of the two music folks to merge through his alchemy skills to form this "phil clone."

However, Rich cannot occupy the same forum OL space at the same time as this evil clone.

Clear as day!

[caroljane]

It's taking me a long time to wade through the huge number of his posts George linked me to in post 113.

I'm still not through, but I want to apologize for calling him in effect a blowhard on the topic of induction and to withdraw my post 112 and the laundry list of charges I made in it.

{I won't delete that post, but will leave it up there because you have to own your foolish charges and leave them as part of the record not rewrite history: embarrassment is a penalty for making rash claims and incentive to try not to keep doing it}.

It's clear from all those posts that he made on these threads: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, New Developments re Harriman Induction book, Logical Leap, Eating Dirt etc. -- that GHS is impressively well-read in the area of induction and the philosophy of science, that he understands the major issues. And that is thoughtful about them.

I can also see more clearly why he claims the problem of induction has "already having been solved" by previous thinkers and that he would be able to state why if challenged. I disagree with that, however. More broadly, I agree with some of his specific conclusions and points and not with others.

What have you done with the real Phil? We can tell an imposter a mile off. And if you think we're going to pay a ransom to get him back, you've got another thing coming.

By my troth Ninth, dost thou verily put thy faith in a real Phil or indeed a real mile, th'art not the Doctor I took ye for!

[caroljane]

Inductively, we have not seen the real Rich Engle posting recently because of some music mirage cover story. We have the mysterious deaths of two (2) giants of the music rhythm and blues industry and we have this "phil coates" clone emerging.

Therefore, clearly Rich has used the life energy of the two music folks to merge through his alchemy skills to form this "phil clone."

However, Rich cannot occupy the same forum OL space at the same time as this evil clone.

Clear as day!

Alchemical forces are at work without a doubt. And the moon is in the seventh house, and small herd animals are roaming the streets.

I intend to lie low.

[Philip Coates]

Very briefly -- after having spent three freakin' hours reading through several months of George's posts -- to summarize without argument my view on whether previous or Oist thinkers have "solved the problem of induction":

I don't agree either with Harriman's view: "One cannot ask for a justification of induction, any more than for a justification of deduction. Inducing and deducing are man's means of justifying anything. Their validity as cognitive processes, therefore, is an unchallengeable given", or with the George's example {assuming I've 'snipped' it properly-always tricky in areas this complex and where details matter} insofar as it is intended to suggest a solution to the problem of induction more broadly:

" Why do we generalize that dirt is bad to eat on the basis of a few samples? ...we made a conceptual identification of the substance we call "dirt" and rationally concluded that other substances with the same nature will have the same negative effects. In sum: We reasoned from particular instances to a generalization about the nature of dirt, and we then applied this generalization to instances as yet untried. This is pretty much what J.S. Mill had in mind when he said that induction consists of reasoning from particulars to particulars by means of an intervening generalization. (I discussed the problem of exceptions in my last post.) "

Also: The uniformity of nature is a valid conclusion (under certain very precise circumstances) and so is the existence of what Mill called parallel cases and induction does presuppose causation. But there is a very specific line of argument and chain of examples needed to validate this.

[william.scherk]

Did anyone note and puzzle over my Meyers-Briggs plug in my signature line? I think Meyers-Briggs is horseshit. What thinks you?

I think it's botched and trite Jung, which Jung would have groaned at. But -- spoiler alert -- I doubt I'll get into it.

I have puzzled over the Meyers-Briggs designations both generally, and specifically. I have tested out as an INTJ 3-4 times over the years, and being a sophmore-in-high-school level Jung student, have found it interesting at that level as well. It is certainly warmed-over plagiarism of Jung. With that said, the INTJ descriptions almost fit me to a tee, and have actually helped me with self-understanding, especially as it relates to my dealings with younger lawyers that work for me.

And, since INTJ's are (supposedly) only 2% of the population or whatever, I also derive a very nice dose of second-hander self esteem from it all...

OK. Is it then a nice almost-and-in-a-way correct or not even wrong heuristic that can help you ID your traits? -- and not, as I imagine it, a horoscope for the objective-ish. It is so odd, though, to my eyes, that it does not intersect in marked ways with trait theory today or, more importantly, with all those iterations of the valid and reliable Big Five tests. I would expect MB to fall in line with other findings from the swamps of personality theory, is all.

But as of yet I hadn't entered much discussion here on OL on this topic. Maybe there is a thread from the Luxuriam Archivium that can be brought out of the crypt and breathed back into life. Nice to know Ellen might be watching. I think she knows her Jung, you have some examples of MB's utility, and I am the demented obsessive. This could be quite the racket when you think about it.

Since you appear to be as inept with the Search function as you are with the Quote function, I have done the 30 seconds of work for you.

[ ... ]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&andor_type=and&sid=62fa7f5105df6eaf2cb5681c660d00d6&search_author=George+H.+Smith&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_content=both&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_app_filters[forums][noPreview]=0&search_app_filters[forums][pCount]=&search_app_filters[forums][pViews]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortDir]=0&search_term=induction&search_app=forums&st=0

George, you have solved the problem of hot-linking search results, which had defeated me and led to my dementia. Now that you (and Ellen) have shown that it can be done, I think I can figure it out.

As far as assuming proper editorial tools over your Corner, that is good. This is a pretty good half-year for you, all in all. So very productive, I wallow like a Kentucky wild boar in comparison. I have been reading your CATO series and relishing your concision and value-for-dollar.

On an unrelated point, I was properly spanked for slurring Diana as "uglier" by the week, and in a cowardly flail at support, misrecalled a George comment (could have been Dr Hard-on) on Diana's fuckability. Now that Newt's love map is on the table, could you comment again?

WSS is showing what a good thing these blogs can be for working out ideas alongside the OL community. He can jump back and forth into the forum as it suits him and he can get selective input from OL members since there are links to blog entries on the sidebar. If a person wants to work out his thinking while being near, but not directly in front of, the smart folks here on OL, I see this as a great opportunity. (And it's free for OL members.)

Exactly right. I do not need a blog since I do not think much anyway, but I sure enjoy watching other people do it. WSS thinks real great.

Who is WSS?

Yes, Thanks again, Michael and Kat for keeping all the blog features. I have benefited and recommend everyone who thinks about it, to at least have a poke or two at it. It is more like a blotter than a file, more like a locker than a display. I should mention that readership of the blogs is limited to actual OL members, so it has an additional privacy. It is a fainting room, a place where you can lodge your most insane and petty complaints, pick your nits, blather on. Definitely off-Broadway, but that's why I like it!

As Spider-Man -- and Voltaire before him -- said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Yes. I need some advice on moderation myself (see my next Secret Blog Post).

WSS is indeed a very multifaceted, creative thinker.

Let the man speak for himself, I say...

... I think I am becoming demented myself.

Michael

I have had a few laughs in this thread so far, and with this one another. I had to give myself a poke.

It's taking me a long time to wade through the huge number of his posts George linked me to in post 113. WHINY< YOU ARE NOT CRIPPLED EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO BE INFORMED OR REFRESHED SHOULD DO HIS OWN FUCKING HOMEWORK FIRST

I'm still not through,FORFUXAKEGETOFFTHEHIGHHORSE but I want to apologize for calling him in effect a blowhard on the topic of induction and to withdraw my post 112 and the laundry list of charges I made in it.

What have you done with the real Phil? We can tell an imposter a mile off. And if you think we're going to pay a ransom to get him back, you've got another thing coming.

No, Dennis, no. No, we must treasure this new little spawn of reason, this Holiday Birth, for the lovely little boneless thing may not survive the harsh nursery that is Objectivist Living. I stress the magic of the Holiday Birth.

[Philip Coates]

> we have this "phil coates" clone emerging.

> the lovely little boneless thing may not survive the harsh nursery that is Objectivist Living.

> Alchemical forces are at work without a doubt. And the moon is in the seventh house, and small herd animals are roaming the streets.

I intend to lie low.

Very good advice. He is a master of misdirection. Just when he has you relaxing your guard, he'll come back and knife you in the short hairs.

[9thdoctor]

No, Dennis, no. No, we must treasure this new little spawn of reason, this Holiday Birth, for the lovely little boneless thing may not survive the harsh nursery that is Objectivist Living. I stress the magic of the Holiday Birth.

Alright, I'll try and be a better Magi.

Little boneless thing? Why did you have to put that detail in there? Now I can't help thinking of:

[anthony]

ND,

Has anyone mentioned that you are patently a very visual person?

btw, that "old whines in new bottles" did not go unnoticed.

I tip my beret to you.

[Brant Gaede]

Exactly right. I do not need a blog since I do not think much anyway, but I sure enjoy watching other people do it. WSS thinks real great.

Who is WSS?

Ghs

Mr. Scherk I believe...William Scott Scherk <<<<yep that be he!

WSS is indeed a very multifaceted, creative thinker.

And you are a highly focused, creative thinker. You are essentially a scholar I think and WSS is essentially a -psychologicl investigator, you are both scrupulously wedded to fact. Not surprising you would admire each other.

What about me?

What about me?

What about me?

--Brant

weak ego

[George H. Smith]

Thanks, Michael. I now have the options of Delete and even Edit for all threads in my corner. I also have an Unapprove option. What does that do? Ban someone from the thread, or something less drastic?

How about an experiment?

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=152994

I did a dirty deed on your experimental post, but not the one you asked for.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

What about me?

What about me?

What about me?

--Brant

weak ego

If it matters, I have changed my opinion of you. I once thought you were sloppy and lazy in reaction, but that was just amour propre over at SOLOP when I was ranting on about Bush/Guantanamo/yadda yadda with Michael Moeller. And of course, you took the side of Moeller because, as it turns out, he was mostly right -- Obama did fuck all to repair or revise the awful things I blamed Bush for needlessly introducing, in the end, though I hope he takes on the responsibility of living up to his promises in a second term. I thought you were playing Yeah WSS Is Longwinded And Wrong, Moeller Wins for pets and strokes from LInz and the zoo, but that was uncharitable. You just did not care for my reasoning and fair enough.

A couple of other times I have twitted you for getting ahead of the data and you have pulled in horns, and at least half the time I get the sense you know what I am talking about, so all in all, you add lustre to OL, very much. It is not just that you have been around and sat in various founders laps and so on, that you took therapy from the partially-deranged and partially-gifted. It's not that. It's that you are an individual, a (seemingly crusty) gun-toting AZ citizen who tells it like it is, from his front porch, with not a word of bitch or whine in it, not a one. A man who killed in war and hates war and adds caution to the bestial wing of Objective-ish, and who generally would make a Righteous Neighbour in any neighbourhood, so, give yourself a pat, do a little happy dance and celebrate the Holiday Birth with everbody.

[Brant Gaede]

What about me?

What about me?

What about me?

--Brant

weak ego

If it matters, I have changed my opinion of you. I once thought you were sloppy and lazy in reaction, but that was just amour propre over at SOLOP when I was ranting on about Bush/Guantanamo/yadda yadda with Michael Moeller. And of course, you took the side of Moeller because, as it turns out, he was mostly right -- Obama did fuck all to repair or revise the awful things I blamed Bush for needlessly introducing, in the end, though I hope he takes on the responsibility of living up to his promises in a second term. I thought you were playing Yeah WSS Is Longwinded And Wrong, Moeller Wins for pets and strokes from LInz and the zoo, but that was uncharitable. You just did not care for my reasoning and fair enough.

A couple of other times I have twitted you for getting ahead of the data and you have pulled in horns, and at least half the time I get the sense you know what I am talking about, so all in all, you add lustre to OL, very much. It is not just that you have been around and sat in various founders laps and so on, that you took therapy from the partially-deranged and partially-gifted. It's not that. It's that you are an individual, a (seemingly crusty) gun-toting AZ citizen who tells it like it is, from his front porch, with not a word of bitch or whine in it, not a one. A man who killed in war and hates war and adds caution to the bestial wing of Objective-ish, and who generally would make a Righteous Neighbour in any neighbourhood, so, give yourself a pat, do a little happy dance and celebrate the Holiday Birth with everbody.

Holy Cow, Bat Man!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

It's taking me a long time to wade through the huge number of his posts George linked me to in post 113. I'm still not through, but I want to apologize for calling him in effect a blowhard on the topic of induction and to withdraw my post 112 and the laundry list of charges I made in it. {I won't delete that post, but will leave it up there because you have to own your foolish charges and leave them as part of the record not rewrite history: embarrassment is a penalty for making rash claims and incentive to try not to keep doing it}. It's clear from all those posts that he made on these threads: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, New Developments re Harriman Induction book, Logical Leap, Eating Dirt etc. -- that GHS is impressively well-read in the area of induction and the philosophy of science, that he understands many central issues. And is thoughtful about them. I can also see more clearly why he claims the problem of induction has "already having been solved" by previous thinkers. I disagree with that. More broadly, I agree with some of his specific conclusions and points and not with others.

Thank you, Phil.

If you have additional comments about the problem of induction, you might wish to revive one of those old threads, say, the one on Harriman. If you post them here, they will probably get buried.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

In greatling gratitude to Lord William the Scherk for the slap on the back that dislodged an unspeakable obstruction and to illustrate I'm cheap, not lazy, I will soon put up a thread dedicated to, but not about, him--yes, there may be filthy lucre money under the table--the title of which I cannot yet relate as it keeps slip-sliding away.

--Brant

too much attention seeking lately by me

[caroljane]

What about me?

What about me?

What about me?

--Brant

weak ego

If it matters, I have changed my opinion of you. I once thought you were sloppy and lazy in reaction, but that was just amour propre over at SOLOP when I was ranting on about Bush/Guantanamo/yadda yadda with Michael Moeller. And of course, you took the side of Moeller because, as it turns out, he was mostly right -- Obama did fuck all to repair or revise the awful things I blamed Bush for needlessly introducing, in the end, though I hope he takes on the responsibility of living up to his promises in a second term. I thought you were playing Yeah WSS Is Longwinded And Wrong, Moeller Wins for pets and strokes from LInz and the zoo, but that was uncharitable. You just did not care for my reasoning and fair enough.

A couple of other times I have twitted you for getting ahead of the data and you have pulled in horns, and at least half the time I get the sense you know what I am talking about, so all in all, you add lustre to OL, very much. It is not just that you have been around and sat in various founders laps and so on, that you took therapy from the partially-deranged and partially-gifted. It's not that. It's that you are an individual, a (seemingly crusty) gun-toting AZ citizen who tells it like it is, from his front porch, with not a word of bitch or whine in it, not a one. A man who killed in war and hates war and adds caution to the bestial wing of Objective-ish, and who generally would make a Righteous Neighbour in any neighbourhood, so, give yourself a pat, do a little happy dance and celebrate the Holiday Birth with everbody.

Holy Cow, Bat Man!

--Brant

Holy Cattle. Don't Tread on Them,

Carol

Partial Hindu

[George H. Smith]

Let's summarize the posts on this thread for today, as sung by that ambiguously gay duo, Bert and Ernie:

Now can we get back to our normal bickering selves?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

WSS is indeed a very multifaceted, creative thinker.

Yes, indeed. Bill is even an expert on makeup.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Not quite, George.

see #147

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Bill Scherk is also a good teacher. In this video he teaches us "how to be gay in 15 seconds."

Bill's videos are very clever. I'm surprised they haven't gotten more hits. Maybe he needs to add an ugly baby or a cute kitten -- redundant phrases in both cases -- or something like that.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

http://youtu.be/OzQKECQgjW8?t=01s

http://youtu.be/nKxyoud_c-E?t=3s

http://youtu.be/AdKjEHfHINQ?t=5s

[Philip Coates]

> If you have additional comments about the problem of induction, you might wish to revive one of those old threads, say, the one on Harriman. [GHS]

I wouldn't want to do what would end up being extensive for two reasons: (1) This certainly isn't the venue I would choose to unveil original work I think important. (2) Even less would I want what would end up as socratic point-counterpoint on such a subject largely with someone who has attacked my honesty or character.

[william.scherk]

Brant -- How's that go? -- "But enough about me. Let's talk about you."?

Our northern songbird Anne Murray put out this primitive video in oops1968 1973 or so. The direst production but less whiny than your pop song, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MinPKn-lwoo

Here, a live version, with the oddest pair of Raggedy Andy overalls a non-lesbian performer has ever worn. Anne shows off her glorious contralto. If you don't stop kissing each other I will post an Elvis/Anne duet and you will all be stuck fast in sentimental amber.

(She was Elvis's favourite female singer. She is what killed him, her sunniness. She has never even had a vitamin, she is that healthy. Struck him dead on the toilet one day, she did.)

http://youtu.be/OzQKECQgjW8?t=01s

Edited January 21, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Pants and a tractor!?