THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record:

1. I did not state that the opening post of this thread about Peikoff's work was outright plagiary. But I did say three things: (1) that it was borderline, meaning some people would see it that way and others would not, (2) that I personally fixed the initial negligence in crediting OPAR within the body of the post, and (3) that the research method used (copy/pasting text and changing words in the middle) was a horrible method. All three statements are true and this can be verified here.

2. On OL, we have been through this mess before and the implications of the previous statement have not borne the fruit that was promised.

3. No more defense of plagiary will be permitted on OL.

4. I take sole responsibility for letting this go on so long. I could have and should have stopped it sooner. I extend my apology to OL members. It will not happen again.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

It will not happen again.

Specifically what does that mean, Michael? Are you banning Victor? Threatening to ban him if he ever does it again? Merely saying that you'll delete any post in which he's caught doing it again?

The first couple times Victor engaged in his habit of borrowing (with a few changes of detail) from other people's work, I accepted his explanation of haste and unfamiliarity with the standard requirements for citing quoted material. But that was more than six months ago and he's repeatedly done it since. Even on the art threads, he availed himself of liberal borrowings of phraseology (often from Torres and Kamhi, but sometimes from other sources too). Furthermore, far from showing any sense of contriteness or chagrin on the recent occasions when he's been caught, he's made light of it, referred to supportive PMs received from his OL fans, told people who objected to "grow up," said it doesn't matter since this is just a "chat room" (excuse me, but possibly some of us are engaged in serious conversation and are not just shooting the breeze to while away time). I see no signs that he even knows how to present an actual argument on his own steam. Plus, most of the arguments he borrows are bad ones. Thus, in addition to his plagiarizing being dishonest practice, he's simply a nuisance to have posting in the intellectual threads. (His posting in the chatty threads is different; there, except for periodic borrowed jokes, he does write his own material.) I don't see how you're going to make good on your statement that it won't happen again unless you either ban Victor entirely or bar him from posting on the intellectual threads (as you did with that one art thread).

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It will not happen again.

Specifically what does that mean, Michael?

Ellen,

This means specifically what I said. It will not happen again.

I am aware of the things you mentioned.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

It will not happen again.

Specifically what does that mean, Michael?

Ellen,

This means specifically what I said. It will not happen again.

I am aware of the things you mentioned.

Michael

An answer which tells me nothing, specifically.

I repeat, this time in the form of a direct question:

HOW are you going to make good on your statement that it won't happen again unless you either ban Victor entirely or bar him from posting on the intellectual threads (as you did with that one art thread)?

Ellen

___

[Dodger]

You have got to be kidding me.

I'll defend Victor if I must. I understand both sides of this arguement, but to put it simply, every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type.

Why is it morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion?

Oh, yes. Because Victor is looting from the productive person who originally wrote what what was used.

Eh..is it really possible to be a producer and NOT be a looter of some sense?

This is where I disagree with Rand--I do not believe in such absolutes.

Since man does not live isolated, his knowledge and his beliefs come from using other people's knowledge and beliefs.

My knowledge of math is not my own, but it is others. Definitions of mathmatical equations are sometimes credited to those who wrote them shortly, but ideas are borrowed and used by individuals to create their own personal ideas, whether or not they are similar or the same as others.

I believe Victor is being lazy, but not being morally wrong.

The standards used against him are not defined by some 'law' so only MSK can set the standard on this forum, simply because it is not law anywhere else.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Why is it morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion?

It isn't morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion. It is morally wrong to help yourself to other people's writing without attribution and to instead pass it off as your own work.

Since man does not live isolated, his knowledge and his beliefs come from using other people's knowledge and beliefs.

Learning from others isn't plagiary. I suggest that you do some research as to what plagiary is, and on the relevant legalities.

Ellen

___

[Dodger]

Why is it morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion?

It isn't morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion. It is morally wrong to help yourself to other people's writing without attribution and to instead pass it off as your own work.

Since man does not live isolated, his knowledge and his beliefs come from using other people's knowledge and beliefs.

Learning from others isn't plagiary. I suggest that you do some research as to what plagiary is, and on the relevant legalities.

Ellen

No need for me to research.

You ignored the contradiction that I stated.

[Ellen Stuttle]

No need for me to research.

You ignored the contradiction that I stated.

What contradiction is that, Dodger? Your post isn't even pertinent to Victor's borrowing habits, except for your comment "every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type," which is a false statement and indicates that you don't understand what plagiary means. I repeat my suggestion that you do some research.

Ellen

___

[Dodger]

No need for me to research.

You ignored the contradiction that I stated.

What contradiction is that, Dodger? Your post isn't even pertinent to Victor's borrowing habits, except for your comment "every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type," which is a false statement and indicates that you don't understand what plagiary means. I repeat my suggestion that you do some research.

Ellen

___

The contradiction is simple, and I wont state it again. It is in the first post I made here.

Anyways...

Words such as “cribbing” and “plagiarizing” are inapplicable in the context of conversation--especially when in live conversation, and this include chat-room forums. And: when you write an article, (even if the article does not collect financial remuneration and is presented on a forum such as OL) it is best to employ up most caution. But in conversational exchange? No.

:shifty:

[BAMF]

Kori probably genuinely doesn't know what the issue is, since she probably doesn't read the intellectual threads on which you've done the bulk of your plagiarizing.

Looks like ya got me! I don't have the mental capacity to even handle reading "intellectual" threads. :cry:

Teehee. Actually, I lurk nearly everywhere on this forum. I just don't post in most of the "intellectual" (whatever that means) threads (especially the 18-page bickerfests).

I'll defend Victor if I must. I understand both sides of this arguement, but to put it simply, every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type.

Why is it morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion?

I understand both sides as well, but I wish it could just be over. No more arguing over this. I've told Victor that I understand where he's coming from, however, I think he needs to cite his sources, not for all OLers' satisfaction, but AT LEAST so that this doesn't come back to bite him in the ass and ruin his career.

Dictionary.com defines plagiary as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Dodger, not everybody is a plagiarist.

The standards used against him are not defined by some 'law' so only MSK can set the standard on this forum, simply because it is not law anywhere else.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but upon my first read of this sentence I thought you were saying that MSK can't make the laws here. If it was your intent to say that, I'ma hafta tell you that he can, in fact, make the laws here. He and Kat own this place. (And actually, plagiary is against the law. Like...THE law...so I understand MSK's concern).

[william.scherk]

I'll defend Victor if I must. I understand both sides of this arguement, but to put it simply, every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type.

I don't understand your note about "every single person," Mitchell. If you are correct, right now, as I type, I am borrowing someone else's words and not acknowledging the borrowing. Can you give a clearer example to illustrate your contention -- who am I plagiarizing?

Why is it morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion?

It is not wrong to use other people's texts to start discussion. It is normal and good . . . I'm doing it now and I LIKE it! Uh huh uh huh (to the tune of KC & the Sunshine Band ). That's the way the big boys dance, dude.

(for more great 70s singles, click the image)

Oh, yes. Because Victor is looting from the productive person who originally wrote what what was used.

Not exactly. In this case, Victor borrowed and tweaked blocks of text from an internet poster named 'Immortalist,' but failed to let us know where the borrowing came from, or that it was tweaked. After repeated blandishments and corrections, and a bellweather statement of principles in which Victor admitted his tweaks and borrowings and vowed to correct himself -- and courteously invited his us to catch him out on any future stumbles.

Listen, Mitchell . . . this is what Victor said to we OL denizens, his chat room peers, in "Personal Statement about Plagiary":

I have allowed this bad habit of not crediting sources to

take root in some of my writing. Recent events have shown

me that this has grown way too much. It is being addressed

and eliminated. If anyone ever becomes aware of a source

that was not properly referenced in my past writing or my

future writing, I would greatly appreciate it if they

contacted me, please, so I can correct it immediately.

Eh..is it really possible to be a producer and NOT be a looter of some sense?

I hope this is a rhetorical question. If not, the answer is yes. In the context of Victor's unattributed borrowings, it is relatively simple to add attributions (e.g., "I was struck by a pithy comment on 'Universal Skepticism' by an internet poster 'Immortalist. He wrote: "Blah blah blah . . . ")

Since man does not live isolated, his knowledge and his beliefs come from using other people's knowledge and beliefs.

Indeed. But I don't know if you understand the difference between plagiarism and properly cited material.

I believe Victor is being lazy, but not being morally wrong.

The standards used against him are not defined by some 'law' so only MSK can set the standard on this forum, simply because it is not law anywhere else.

You are correct that plagiarism is not down by law, not a criminal offence, or that there are few if any state, provincial or federal laws against it, but you are incorrect if your contention is that plagiarism is not well defined. Indeed, plagiarism has an inglorious history in common law.

I read above in response to La Stuttle that you are unwilling to undertake any research as suggested: is this because you already know all that you need to know, or is it because you do not take correction, or is there some other obstacle to you educating yourself further on the issues at hand?

Let me offer you goodwill, Mitchell, and offer you a succulent and succinct sort of wisdom.

Let us all bow low before the wisdom of KC and the Sunshine Band.

Do you know why we curb plagiarism, Mitchell? 'Cause that's the way we like it here, we pre-elderly partially-Randized O-living wanna-be better-than-normal-human honchos and honchettes . . .

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

When you take me by the hand,

tell me I'm your lovin man

When you give me all your love and do it

Babe, the very best you can

Oh, That's the way I like it

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

When I get to be in your arms,

when we're all all alone

When you whisper sweet in my ear,

when you turn, turn me on.

Oh, that's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

Say O.K. That's the way, that's the way

Say O.K. That's the way, that's the way

That's the way, I like it

That's the way, I like it

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo

That's the way I like it

That's the way I like it

That's the way I like it

Say O.K. That's the way, that's the way

Say O.K. That's the way, that's the way

Copyright © 1975 sherlyn publishing co.

[Brant Gaede]

It will not happen again.

Specifically what does that mean, Michael?

Ellen,

This means specifically what I said. It will not happen again.

I am aware of the things you mentioned.

Michael

An answer which tells me nothing, specifically.

I repeat, this time in the form of a direct question:

HOW are you going to make good on your statement that it won't happen again unless you either ban Victor entirely or bar him from posting on the intellectual threads (as you did with that one art thread)?

Ellen

___

Gee, Ellen. You're harsher on Michael than Victor, or so it seems. He said he was going to do something, let him do it. He's not your employee. Nor do you own stock in the company, so to say. I can see you're mad about this whole thing, but you've taken a step too far. It's a matter of basic courtesy and respect. Cut him some slack.

--Brant

[BAMF]

^Wordie, birdie! (That means, "I agree.")

[Johnny]

Johnny:

>The statement is "in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth" Just answer the question, is that a true statement or not?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest this statement is true. There is extremely sound logic to show that it's true. Hence I believe it is true.

Why would you believe it is true if the statement says "we NEVER have sufficient reason for the BELIEF that we have attained the TRUTH?"

If you BELIEVE it is true, then by what reason did you arrive to that conclusion it is a true statement? If we never have sufficient reason to believe we have attained the truth, then you do not have sufficient reason to believe that statement is true. Otherwise you are cherry picking when and how this philsophical absolute applies, which leaves it a logical fallacy.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Johnny

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I understand both sides of this arguement, but to put it simply, every single person in this forum plagarizes when they type.

Mitchell,

This is not precise and is really an issue for another discussion, but I will give you some basics. (btw - It is "argument," not "arguement.")

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Only entities can. Matter in itself can only be manipulated, formed, etc. So in this sense, when we say we created something and own it, we have taken matter that already existed and made it into a new entity.

This is similar to ideas and knowledge. Identification of facts is not creation per se. It is merely looking at what exists, forming a concept for it and attaching a word to it. This is work, but it is not property. One of the benefits of living in society is that this work is done by many people and methods are devised to allow an individual to learn a vast volume of knowledge in a relatively easy manner. I know that school is not a garden of roses, but I assure you that the wealth you receive there is much more than you would receive by yourself marooned on a tropical island.

Where property comes in is when these things (matter and concepts) are set into a particular form for human use by creativity. That is what a person owns. Atlas Shrugged is all about focusing on this. If someone says that a television is easy to produce because the materials are already in nature, let him start from scratch and produce one and see how easy it is. If he says that feeding the world's hungry is easy because food comes from the ground, let him plow the fields and grow the food to feed them and see how easy it is.

If he says that all written works belong to everybody because everybody has ideas, let him write a book and see how easy that is and whether he wants to give it away.

In our country, intellectual property is protected by copyrights and patents. Here is a link to Copyright Office Basics by the US Government. You can read the entire Title 17 from the US Code if you like, but that is not necessary to understand some core concepts. Here are a few quotes from the "Copyright Office Basics" page (but I suggest you read that whole page):

What Works Are Protected?

Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device.

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

* Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

* Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

* Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

* Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

How to Secure a Copyright

Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. . . .

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

This form also includes Internet sites. A special law has been made called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but it does not contradict the principles here. I find this issue fascinating, but like I said, this is a discussion for another place.

Basically, to address your comment, you need to define intellectual property before you define the wrongful use of it (plagiary). I think you can see here that the issue is not as simple as it appears on the surface.

Why is it morally wrong to use other texts as reason to start discussion?

Actually it is not morally wrong. What is morally wrong is using the text of another author and not attributing him with the authorship, pretending that you are the one who wrote it. There are three concepts you need to learn and think about (and look into if you are interested) on this.

The first is fair use. Under copyright law, if I want to use a whole book, even by attributing the author, I cannot do so without requesting permission from the owner. Often this means paying for the privilege. However, if I wish to use only a small part, I can do so without seeking permission. This is called fair use. There is a section in Title 17 that deals with fair use, but basically, using another's text to start a discussion or illustrate a point is both legal and moral. In fact, it honors the author by considering his work important enough to be used as a source.

The second is moral rights. There are certain rights that are not transferable to another. One is attribution. The authorship of a work cannot be bought. I can buy the commercial use of a work, but I cannot buy (or use) a work and then proclaim to everyone that I wrote it. I still have to attribute the author. This is where Victor has constantly erred. He does not attribute the authors of the texts he uses. The default understanding in our society is that if a person proclaims something under his own name he is the author. For instance, this holds true for posts here on OL where the poster is identified on the left. We automatically presume if a post by Dodger appears, Dodger wrote it.

Another moral right is what is called the integrity of a work. I cannot take a work and mutilate it, then pass it off as that work, even if I own it. This is also where Victor has constantly erred. He takes the work of another, changes a few words and phrases but leaves the rest intact. He mutilates the original by making his own changes. To be fair, if he is dealing with a fair use excerpt and say he is paraphrasing the original author, this would not be serious enough to get bothered over.

In your world (I mean the world of young people), there is an issue that is raging in copyright law that has not really been resolved. This concerns sampling parts of a recorded song and including them in other works, especially rap songs. This practice often violates both moral rights I mentioned above, but just as often it falls into fair use.

On the Internet, the ease of copy/paste has made these rights pretty easy to violate. Until all the law gets worked out, this makes it especially important for people to use their conscious and personal morality.

The standards used against him are not defined by some 'law' so only MSK can set the standard on this forum, simply because it is not law anywhere else.

Here I would like you to consider some other concepts.

The first is Internet chat room versus Internet discussion forum. The main difference between the two is not the quickness of being able to type a message, but in archiving material. A forum is a form of publication, just like a book is, only it is electronic and is fairly unorganized due to lots of contributors. Many people use forums as a place to generate reference materials (or provide information on how to access them) and be the starting place of works that will become books and so forth. OL is one such place. Now a forum can be used in the manner of a chat room, but that does not change its nature as a place of publication. You can use a computer to play games, but "electronic game device" is not the definition of a computer.

The second is property. I cannot walk into a restaurant open to the public and simply pee on the floor in front of everyone or put on loud music and start yelling, claiming that because it is open to the public, I can enter and do what I damn well please. Setting aside public nuisance and indecency laws, the restaurant is private property and the owner sets the rules for behavior of guests and customers.

Let's think about just this one point and forget all about law, morality, etc. Kat and I own this forum. We pay money to keep it on the air and it is registered in our names. It is our property. If you scroll down to the bottom of this page, you will see the following phrase:

Licensed to: Kat and Michael Stuart Kelly - Copyright © 2006 Objectivist Living

This pertains to the software license. It is a license without a time limit for expiration, but there is a maintenance fee that Kat keeps up to date. And there is a domain we pay for to host all this. Kat also pays for some things on search engines. The point is that there is cost, labor, licenses and contracts involved here. Now go to the following link and read the message: Statement of Policy about Plagiary and Copyright Infringement. We put that up in September of last year, and it was prompted by an issue where Victor plagiarized parts of an essay by an author named Diana Hsieh. This was especially serious because that person considers us as some kind of enemy that needs to be destroyed. Regardless of the seriousness, our rules have been in place and available to the public for months. Victor was well aware of them, yet he continually violated them. That alone is enough for me to be royally pissed.

Now let's turn our attention to plagiary itself. Rather than go into a discussion, I highly recommend an essay (handout) called Plagiarism by the Writing Center of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. You will find discussed there the difference between plagiarism, common knowledge, paraphrasing and some great advice for students. Here is another take on plagiarism from Wikipedia: Plagiarism.

Why have I tolerated Victor's plagiarism for so long? The answer it two-fold:

(1) I believed (and still believe) that he is a talented caricaturist who has an authentic style and I hoped to be able to help foster it. Added to this is a strong belief in valuing the positive and not the negative. When a person does 99 things good and 1 thing bad, it is human nature to focus on the bad thing and forget all about the rest. I try for balance.

(2) I believe in moral learning, that it is possible to change immorality that is within one's code of behavior given the right conditions. I am an ex-drug addict and ex-alcoholic and I learned the hard way. I literally consciously chose the good from a very bad place. (There is a character by Dostoevsky who ended up believing in God because he had already met the devil. I am partially that way about the good.)

I tried to provide those "right conditions" here on OL for Victor to see what he was doing and do what he needed to change it. I have left him an enormous amount of leeway. This took a particular form of holding off attacks on him for plagiary. Apparently, he interpreted all this as a sanction for wrongdoing, not as breathing space to think and grow.

I have now withdrawn the conditions and he is on his own about plagiary.

Just one final comment. OL is a site for individuals and independent thinking. It is about rational individualism with an Objectivist focus.

There is a tendency toward tribal behavior in the Objectivist community and going off into an "us against them" mentality. My issue with Victor at this moment is individual: one on one, although some of this is being done in public (and I regret that, but it can't be helped because Victor was so public in everything).

I hate public crucifixion and lynch mobs, so you might notice that I have not been announcing to everybody what restrictions I have been putting on Victor's participation on OL. But they exist. Whether they stay in place will depend on many factors. Further damage to OL (my property and Kat's) is not an option.

My hatred of public spectacles is such that over the last few months I have quietly deleted several posts where Victor has plagiarized precisely to contain making a circus out of his lapses. I have tried to deal with this off line. I have not grouped with other OL members to scapegoat Victor (and I am not saying that OL members scapegoat anything—they don't—I merely mention that this often happens in Objectivist circles). On the contrary, if you only knew the amount of off line defense I have made of him, one-on-one, you would be shocked and think I was nuts.

I am a very tolerant person and I am very stubborn about my convictions, even to the point of making people I love and admire very angry with me. But I also have limits. Victor's lapses have increased in frequency to the extent his antagonism toward certain posters has grown. Then he started defending his plagiarism by denigrating OL and the posters here. And he does all this in the name of Objectivism, which is absurd. If there is one fundamental value in Objectivism that attracts more than any other to Rand's work, it is sanctity of the mind and respect for the work of others.

As an individual, I do not ask you Mitchell, the individual, to agree with me. I only ask that Mitchell, the individual, and not Mitchell, the friend of this person or that, to do his own thinking—and to study. There are plenty of links in this post, so you don't even have to look things up. You have a good mind and I am sure that whatever conclusion you come to will have solid grounding in rational thinking once you put in some elbow grease.

I hope this clarifies some of your doubts. If you have any further question, any at all, please contact me off line.

Michael

[Johnny]

Johnny:

>The statement is "in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth" Just answer the question, is that a true statement or not?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest this statement is true. There is extremely sound logic to show that it's true. Hence I believe it is true.

Hm. That's not what I expected you to say. I expected you to say that the statement is true but isn't itself a scientific statement. There are MANY true statements -- including statements about science -- which aren't scientific statements. A trivial example of a statment which is true but isn't a scientific statement: "Johnny" is the username used by the person who asked you the question. This is not a scientific statement.

Ellen

___

Ellen, I don't understand why and how you make a differentiation between a truth that is philosophical or scientific in this context? If we never in science, have sufficient reason to believe we have attained the truth, then I don't understand what scientists talk about all day? How could they proclaim anything if they never believe anything they say is true?

If the statement is "Johnny" is the username used by the person who asked the question not a scientific statement, then what is it? A philosophical one? I would assume this statement is an observation, as I understand it, science requires we make observations.

[Johnny]

Johnny:

>The statement is "in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth" Just answer the question, is that a true statement or not?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest this statement is true. There is extremely sound logic to show that it's true. Hence I believe it is true.

However, just because there is good evidence and sound logic for this statement - not to mention my strong belief in it - does not guarantee that it is true. It may turn out to be false.

If something may turn out to be false, then you haven't demonstrated you have found something to be true by using sound logic. If it may be false, then you cannot say it is true.

Thus I cannot, and do not, claim it is irrefutably true.

Then you haven't demonstrated what you claim is true. At best, you appear to be claiming one can only hope to attain what appears to be true, but this proposition doesn't work either. In order to know what appears to be true, one must be able to distinguish between a true scientific statement, and a false scientific statement (just as you would have to know the difference between a car and a horse to be able to distinguish one from the other). But according to you, one can never really know we have attained a truth, which means one can never really know what is a truth! Since if every "true" scientific statement could conceivable be false, then every "false" scientific statement could conceivably be true! Therefore, we have no understandable distinction between the words "true" and "false".

This is a perfectly logically consistent position, and is not a "fallacy" at all. This naiive Objectivist argument against skepticism is itself a fallacy, and an old one at that.

Or, it is conceivably a perefectly illogically inconsistent position, and is a fallacy. This naive Barnian argument against self-refuting fallacies is itself, a fallacy, and a tiresome one at that.

[Daniel Barnes]

Johnny:

>If something may turn out to be false, then you haven't demonstrated you have found something to be true by using sound logic. If it may be false, then you cannot say it is true.

But I don't say it is true. I say I think it is true, but might be wrong. I do not see what is so hard to grasp about this. Next you're going to tell me it's "illogical" to invent hypotheses....;-)

Am I going to have to explain the difference between hypotheses and positive truth claims yet again, as I had to do to Victor?

Daniel:

>Thus I cannot, and do not, claim it is irrefutably true.

Johnny:

>Then you haven't demonstrated what you claim is true.

What are you talking about here? What is it I am supposed to "demonstrate"? I think you've made a basic error here. Let me try to explain what it is below:

>At best, you appear to be claiming one can only hope to attain what appears to be true...

Yes, now you're getting it!....

>but this proposition doesn't work either. In order to know what appears to be true, one must be able to distinguish between a true scientific statement, and a false scientific statement (just as you would have to know the difference between a car and a horse to be able to distinguish one from the other).

...and now you're losing it! Your error here is that you think in order to "distinguish between a true scientific statement and a false scientific statement" I have to somehow "demonstrate" what a true statement looks like. Actually, in order to distinguish between the two, what I need is not a "demonstration", but some rules for establishing truth and falsity in the first place; that is, a theory of truth.

My preferred theory of truth is the correspondence theory of truth; that the truth is correspondence with the facts, and falsehood is likewise non-correspondence.

You with me so far?

Now we come to an important asymmetry; between the conditions of truth and falsity for such a theory.

Note that to be considered true, a theory would have to correspond to all the facts.

Unfortunately, human knowledge has some limits, the most fundamental being we never have all the facts. Bummer!

Fortunately, the upside is the conditions for falsity. For a theory to be false, it only has to be contradicted by a single fact!

Thus, in principle, we can take advantage of this logical asymmetry to at least demonstrate that a theory is false by the rules we have established. However, contra you, establishing falsity obviously does not require truth be equally established.

This is were you've come unstuck.

Johnny:

>But according to you, one can never really know we have attained a truth, which means one can never really know what is a truth!

Yes! We can of course have a theory or definition of "truth" (eg correspondence with the facts), if that's what you mean by "know what is a truth". That is how we can decide what is false or not. But we can't know that we have an absolutely true theory.

Johnny:

>Or, it is conceivably a perefectly illogically inconsistent position, and is a fallacy. This naive Barnian argument against self-refuting fallacies is itself, a fallacy, and a tiresome one at that.

So once again, my position is clearly not a fallacy; or at least, your argument fails. I agree it is somewhat tiresome to explain it however - I have done it rather a lot now - but hopefully you've got a better handle on it.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Ellen Stuttle]

Gee, Ellen. You're harsher on Michael than Victor, or so it seems. He said he was going to do something, let him do it. He's not your employee. Nor do you own stock in the company, so to say. I can see you're mad about this whole thing, but you've taken a step too far. It's a matter of basic courtesy and respect. Cut him some slack.

Yes, I'm mad about this whole thing, and, yes, I'm harsher on Michael than on Victor. I'm disappointed by the way Michael has handled the whole issue of Victor. I kept my mouth shut for a long time, as I said in an earlier post on this thread, out of respect for this being Michael's list. I'll add that I hoped Michael really was trying to do something behind the scenes to discourage Victor from the plagiarizing.

But I was one of those who were aware -- I was on-line when this happened in the wee hours a few weeks ago -- that Victor had posted an old essay on Popper by Nicholas Dykes (claiming that he, Victor, had been reading Popper; yeah, sure, tell me another) and that Michael had deleted the thread without saying anything to the list at large. (He didn't say anything to me either; he didn't know I was aware of the incident.) My opinion was and remains that the Dykes borrowing should have been the end of it, that Michael should have banned Victor from posting on OL.

It wasn't as if Victor hadn't been warned. He came here in the first place as a result of his getting in dutch on SOLO over non-attribution of sources. The borrowing from Dykes was especially blatant. (How Victor imagined the source wouldn't be recognized, I don't know.)

The end of patience where I was concerned came when Victor then lifted wording from someone else in his descriptions of Madame Bovary. And now, on this thread, he's borrowed again, from a poster elsewhere screen-named "Immortalist." I see no prospect of Victor's reforming. Victor doesn't even seem to feel a sense of wrong-doing.

I'd decided awhile back to stop posting here myself, but then I changed my mind. Probably I should have stuck with my original decision. This whole business -- including the number of people who are so charmed by Victor as to defend him -- has soured OL for me. At minimum, I'm going to take a several-week's break from posting here. (I haven't yet, btw, read Michael's long post on the situation; I'm too tired to read that now. I hope things will sort themselves out, but I don't want to be involved any further at this time.)

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, I've missed a lot of this because I mostly don't read Victor's posts--too long; too many. I also skip a lot of what Michael writes. I just don't have the time, even though I can and do sign on here several times a day and frequently make quick comments. There are three or four things in my life that have higher priority than Internet postings. This is one reason most of my posts are so short. I have a greater passion for trading equities and it looks like I made a thousand yesterday.

I do hope this is not going to be a case of good being driven out by bad, for when you're not here I miss you. I would miss Michael too, btw, and this site. He does prodigious work. Please give him a chance to work it out.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, you and I are veterans of Atlantis and Atlantis II. Don't run away from this. Everyone is different with different perspectives and tolerances. Jimmy Wales destroyed Atlantis because he came in from left field without justification and tried to stick it to us, but that is not happening here. Michael is very catholic, but he too has his limits. For sure. They may not be yours or mine and so what? He has them. If he didn't I wouldn't be here. But I sure do miss that old Atlantis. Somehow it worked in spite of the frequent craziness and the always present Ellen Moore, whom I miss in a nostalgic way.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, you are pushing the envelope, but it's not your envelope.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Then you haven't demonstrated what you claim is true. At best, you appear to be claiming one can only hope to attain what appears to be true, but this proposition doesn't work either. In order to know what appears to be true, one must be able to distinguish between a true scientific statement, and a false scientific statement (just as you would have to know the difference between a car and a horse to be able to distinguish one from the other). But according to you, one can never really know we have attained a truth, which means one can never really know what is a truth! Since if every "true" scientific statement could conceivable be false, then every "false" scientific statement could conceivably be true! Therefore, we have no understandable distinction between the words "true" and "false".

Here is something you can take to the bank. An inconsistent set of assertions taken as a bundle cannot be true.

If a hypothesis leads to something that can be empirically falsified then the hypothesis must be false or the empirical determination of the falsity is not sound.

Inconsistencies do not exist in the real world.

That is the basis of falsification of scientific theories.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Brant & Ellen,

Speaking for me, I don't want to lose either of you.

Brant, I like you my posts are short and I do a lot of them. Yours are better.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Dragonfly]

I'd decided awhile back to stop posting here myself, but then I changed my mind. Probably I should have stuck with my original decision. This whole business -- including the number of people who are so charmed by Victor as to defend him -- has soured OL for me. At minimum, I'm going to take a several-week's break from posting here. (I haven't yet, btw, read Michael's long post on the situation; I'm too tired to read that now. I hope things will sort themselves out, but I don't want to be involved any further at this time.)

Ellen, I hope you'll keep posting here; otherwise it would indeed be driving the good out by the bad, a brain drain, the inevitable result of too much toleration. If you no longer post on this forum its content/shit ratio will become far too low.