TTI Forums

Global Warming, obviously, is a big one. NO, I am not interested in discussion over whether it is/is not happening. There's already a thread for that one.

But there's certainly a great deal of evidence that many political/activist groups are opportunistically using it as an excuse to exercise the government's power to micromanage our lives.

The lastest: A proposed California building code which puts your thermostat not under your control, but under the control of power companies.

I'm pretty sure anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged would get a chill up their spine at the mention of vaguely-defined "emergency events".

If you find any other cases of a moral panic being used as a trojan horse for increased governmental intrusion into the basics of everyday life, please post them in this thread.

Global Warming, obviously, is a big one. NO, I am not interested in discussion over whether it is/is not happening

If you can't support your claim with evidence, then this is nothing more than unfounded accusation, worthy only of conspiracy theorists. Why then should anyone take the argument seriously?

But there's certainly a great deal of evidence that many political/activist groups are opportunistically using it as an excuse to exercise the government's power to micromanage our lives.

Again....what evidence? You claim a conspiracy, and offer no support at all. Might as well be regailing us about the latest exploits of Bigfoot - you have exactly the same amount of support for those arguments.

The lastest: A proposed California building code which puts your thermostat not under your control, but under the control of power companies.

I'm pretty sure anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged would get a chill up their spine at the mention of vaguely-defined "emergency events".

from the sited article
In some technocratic worldview, it does have a justification. California's population growth and its affluence have strained the state's electric and natural gas resources. Famously, rolling blackouts have occurred due to shortages of electrical generation during peak periods.

Hmm...rolling blackouts. Seems I heard something about that before.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/ ... gi/37/8796

The tapes and memorandums were made public by a small public utility north of Seattle that is fighting Enron over a power contract. They also showed that Enron, as early as 1998, was creating artificial energy shortages and running up prices in Canada in advance of California's larger experiment with deregulation.

The tapes provide new details of market manipulation during the California energy crisis that produced blackouts and billions of dollars of surcharges to homes and businesses on the West Coast in 2000 and 2001.

Those rolling blackouts were the direct result of manipulation of the market by private companies. Not by the government of California. If those companies had not been attempting to manipulate the market for their own gain, as California was in the process of deregulating its energy market, there would be no need for this 'emergency measure'.

If Fascism is coming to government, at least in this case, it is because private companies themselves no longer agree with the free market. I suggest you aim your vitrol at the actual source of the problem, rather than at those nebulous 'political/activist' groups.

If you find any other cases of a moral panic being used as a trojan horse for increased governmental intrusion into the basics of everyday life, please post them in this thread.

I'll take the obvious one then - the suspension and curtailing of individual liberties under the guise of combating 'international terrorism'.


AT

For the record, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. Conspiracies are rarely necessary when many entities hopping on a bandwagon opportunistically works just as well.

I'm not some sort of global warming denier. I used to be, but I looked into the science more and saw that there was some quite reasonable science behind global warming (it's just that the media like to focus on apocalyptic crackpots like Gore). I just didn't want that argument spilling over to this thread when it was already taking place on another.

I personally think that there is more risk from an ill-thought out overreaction to climate change than there is from climate change itself.

So I hope that sets things straight on that matter.

For the record, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. Conspiracies are rarely necessary when many entities hopping on a bandwagon opportunistically works just as well.

I'm not some sort of global warming denier. I used to be, but I looked into the science more and saw that there was some quite reasonable science behind global warming (it's just that the media like to focus on apocalyptic crackpots like Gore). I just didn't want that argument spilling over to this thread when it was already taking place on another.

I personally think that there is more risk from an ill-thought out overreaction to climate change than there is from climate change itself.

So I hope that sets things straight on that matter.

Your particular outlook on the whole subject is less a concern to me than the manner in which you proceed to accept that outlook. As I've said, there is as much 'bad science' on one side of the issue as the other. The main thing is that we arrive at our positions from good evidence.

The reason I hate this debate so much is because so much of it stems from sweeping ideological statements made by proponents of both sides, with no evidence to back them up. Every time I see such a statement that isn't immediately followed by a citation or logical reasoning, I instinctively want to reach for a sledgehammer.

I sometimes feel, especially in relation to this subject, like I am growing more and more sympathetic to the character of Richard Stadler in Atlas Shrugged. His great crime isn't that he takes public money to create the Science Institute....that is merely a consequence of his position. His real crime is that he is eventually convinced that humanity as a whole _can't_ be reasonable. That people just don't think as a natural course of action (the opposite position of Rand). The more I watch this debate play out, the more I am convinced that people really do not want to think about it, but, rather, they just want to shout their ideology for the sole purpose of hearing themselves speak. The science (facts) is viewed as obstacles, not the ground work for reasoning something out.

I can't help but feel Stadler's frustration, or understand his contempt. Rather than accepting the proposition that humans are just unthinking animals, I lash out wherever I feel that an explaination could be given, but isn't. I demand evidence as proof that thinking is going on, even of people who may have throughly researched a subject but just didn't feel the need to outline their whole argument at the time they make a statement. Maybe it's unfair of me - maybe I am making an unreasonable demand in what should be a simple conversation - but this is the 'Deep Thoughts' forum - I come here expecting full, in depth, reasoned debate. My expectation makes me a bit irritable.

And now that I've said my peace, I surrender the podium to your quite appropriate subject of discussion, and will leave global warming in its own thread.

AT

The reason I hate this debate so much is because so much of it stems from sweeping ideological statements made by proponents of both sides, with no evidence to back them up. Every time I see such a statement that isn't immediately followed by a citation or logical reasoning, I instinctively want to reach for a sledgehammer.

Then why do it? reaching for the sledgehammer would not be instinct, it would be choice. I don't like statements like this because it midegates choice.

I don't think stadler's main flaw was just taking public money--that was just a side effect of his main flaw. His main flaw was thinking that science has no relation to business, and that, science should exist without any purpose pertaining to the economy. This is the reason his institute never got anywhere after he made that move. Science has got to have a purpose.

Times like this, I'm really glad I believe that staying on topic is for sissies

Really what I meant is: after stradler created his institute, he tried to do science without a purpose. He lost sense of the ends and tried merely focusing on the means. But you might be right, I don't remember exactly what Galt said to him (it wasn't a point in the book that caught me as much as other points).

Really what I meant is: after stradler created his institute, he tried to do science without a purpose. He lost sense of the ends and tried merely focusing on the means. But you might be right, I don't remember exactly what Galt said to him (it wasn't a point in the book that caught me as much as other points).

Stadler does most of the talking...Galt just stares disapprovingly at him while the poor man tries desperately to rationalize his failings.

But you are right, it isn't the strongest part of the book, and probably more open to interpretation than others.


AT

Man cannot help being a rational being...
AT

I highly disagree with this part. Now, I assume you are talking from your perspective here not from Ayn Rand, b/c John Galt clearly said otherwise.

And I find that man definitely doesn't become a rational being automatically, and there is anything that "pushes" him towards being rational.

Current world and history for past thousands of years, shows that most men are irrational and very few are rational.

As said by John Galt:

Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice.

Just as reason is not automatic, that one has to choose to follow reason; the same way being rational isn't automatic or in any way "helped" by any instinct.

And I really don't think people are that curious. Vast majority prefers to hide from the reality than to face it.

----

It's true that most kids seem to be more active on average, but only lasts on last reflexes and basic emotions. When the mind develops enough to be more capable of making choices, all hell breaks loose for the majority of people. So, I don't think you can use kids to argue your point.

Well yes. I would say that rationalism is a state of intellectual order and it's subject to entropy trying to push it towards a natural state of chaos. Maintaining order in the face of entropy always involves a great deal of effort.

Arakasi:

Man cannot help being a rational being...
AT

I highly disagree with this part. Now, I assume you are talking from your perspective here not from Ayn Rand, b/c John Galt clearly said otherwise.

And I find that man definitely doesn't become a rational being automatically, and there is anything that "pushes" him towards being rational.

I have what I consider to be a symmantical difference with Rand on the subject. I believe human beings have evolved particular brain structures that cause us to 'think' in a rational manner. Basically, that our brains are genetically 'wired' to look for cause/effect, to perceive particular qualities about our surrounds that we can use to create conscious, logical mappings, etc. Our intelligence and reason are tools we have evolved to aid in our survival and propogation. It is because of this genetic machinery that I say 'Man cannot help being a rational being'. We can no more turn off this perceptual and organizing machinery than we can consciously shut off our heartbeat.

Where Rand and I agree is on a discussion of rational action. We have this machinery, but we also have separate machinery that controls our actual actions. We have different mechanisms for decision making, and there is no 'direct line' between the reasoning centers of the brain and this decision making piece. We have free will to _ignore_ our reason in favor of other decision making tools (like emotions or animal instincts, for instance). The result is the same - Rand talks about a man 'shutting off his reason, and becoming a savage brute'. I view it as man chosing to ignore his reason in favor of animal instincts. Reason might still be running 'in the background' - it's just not being acted on.

Either way, rational action is a volitional act.

Where you and I truly differ is the idea that there is something that 'pushes' man towards being a rational being. That suggests to me an outside influence, and I'm not sure what you mean by that. To me, reason is inbuilt - it's part of the genetic structure, if you will. It is internal, and it is part of our nature as intelligence primates. I think that 'choice' has to intervene to make a person irrational, not something from the outside forcing a person to _be_ rational.


To Ginuad's point - I believe rationalism is 'a state of intellectual order', but one that has a physical underpinning in our brains. I have no agreement with any kind of mind/brain duality - the brain gives direct rise to consciousness. Because the brain is a physical object, it is subject to entropy, and there are clearly examples of cases where human beings with certain types of brain damage lose all ability to reason. But I don't think I agree that 'entropy' pushes us towards a state of natural chaos. First off, I'm not sure what you mean by 'natural chaos' - nature is not chaotic - it is, in fact, well ordered, if you are referring to actions of beasts in nature, predator/prey relationships, etc. If it was truly chaotic, we would never be able to learn anything from it - all scientific study would break down as unrepeatable. Second, acting as the 'primitive animal' or 'savage' is, in my mind, a choice we make to override one form of decision making process for another. That's not entropic - that's conscious.

AT

<ADMIN>

Apologies, I have made a mess. I have edited your post, instead of writing a new one. I tried to go back in my browser history, but couldn't resurrect it.

Sorry again.


--
Oleksandr

<ADMIN>

That's unfortunate, because the post was directly relating my reasons for being the 'verbose loudmouth' I tend to be on these posts, especially on subjects like Global Warming.

But these things happen when one has Admin access. I should know - I _still_ have admin access for this board myself, despite having been inactive for years and only recently coming back to the game. My wife gave my account admin access when she was building the site and forums since I was more active, and she could use it to make changes, run tests, etc. I constantly have to be on guard not to do exactly the same thing you did in this instance


The main jist of the post is that I have to defend my positions on these subjects, despite becoming angry, because emotion, as Rand points out, is just the unconscious response built on a person's values. I get angry when I don't see rational argument, because I value reason. If I stopped arguing, I would have to abandon my reason and values to accomplish it, which I simply cannot do.

The second half was a discussion about the character of Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged - a figure that Rand portrays as a villian, but whom I instead tend to view merely as a tragic Shakespearing figure, whose own love of reason drives him to a point of considering human beings to be naturally irrational - a point dyametrically opposed to Rand's (and Galt's) position. Once he accepts that stance, his actions pervert to all kinds of behavior Galt considers to be the antithesis to reason.

I also touched on the point that I consider the meaning of science to truly be the search for knowledge - the method by which we perceive and reason facts from perceptual observations. 'science', in this meaning, differs from 'SCIENCE' as it is usually understood in modern parlance - the actions of huge groups of researchers working in labs, etc (one physical manifestation of the 'scientific process').

Hopefully that's enough context to make sense of the later posts.

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:I have what I consider to be a symmantical difference with Rand on the subject. I believe human beings have evolved particular brain structures that cause us to 'think' in a rational manner. Basically, that our brains are genetically 'wired' to look for cause/effect, to perceive particular qualities about our surrounds that we can use to create conscious, logical mappings, etc. Our intelligence and reason are tools we have evolved to aid in our survival and propogation. It is because of this genetic machinery that I say 'Man cannot help being a rational being'. We can no more turn off this perceptual and organizing machinery than we can consciously shut off our heartbeat.

Even if this is true: That doesn't mean that they reason correctly and always look at all the facts. Reason takes focus on facts. Rationalist always reason like you say--but they don't focus their mind on the right things (like reality).

Also, Olek said that _nothing_ pushes someone to reason. He just forgot his negation there because he is a foreigner .

About your having to argue to support your values: That isn't true. Sometimes just saying "I disagree" is enough. Even then, a forum isn't something that really glues you to its opinion like a personal conversation with someone. There are tons or irrational things on the Internet.

I currious though, what is reason to you? Could you define it in one or two sentences?

Even if this is true: That doesn't mean that they reason correctly and always look at all the facts. Reason takes focus on facts. Rationalist always reason like you say--but they don't focus their mind on the right things (like reality).

Maybe that's true, but it would be an inherent fault in both my and Rand's definitions. Her fiction is full of characters acting rationally from their own false premises (acting rationally but not reasonably). I think she would also agree that damage to the reasoning centers of the brain would naturally result in irrational behavior.

Also, Olek said that _nothing_ pushes someone to reason. He just forgot his negation there because he is a foreigner .

My misunderstanding then. But Rand herself does say that man is a rational being - but that reason is volitional. Her presentation of the idea seems to be one of an 'inherent quality', mine is just a derivation from biology. Both result in the same conclusion about human behavior. Acting rationally is volitional.

About your having to argue to support your values: That isn't true. Sometimes just saying "I disagree" is enough. Even then, a forum isn't something that really glues you to its opinion like a personal conversation with someone. There are tons or irrational things on the Internet.

I think the statement - "I disagree" - misses the point of have a _debate_. It might be a good conversation stopper, and it might stop my blood pressure from rising exponentially, but it's not going to convince anyone of anything. And I really don't see a point in an _exchange_ of ideas where no attempt is made to persuade someone. But that is just a personal opinion.

I currious though, what is reason to you? Could you define it in one or two sentences?

Well, my specific usage of the word 'reason' is often contextually based, but, for an epistomological definitinon, I cleave pretty close to Rand.

Reason is the faculty of the mind that collects, identifies, and correlates the perceptions of the senses, and reduces them to conceptualizations. The process by which this is done is referred to as logic, which is itself defined as the argument (Rand calls it 'the art' ) to non-contradictory identification.

AT[/quote]

Maybe that's true, but it would be an inherent fault in both my and Rand's definitions. Her fiction is full of characters acting rationally from their own false premises (acting rationally but not reasonably). I think she would also agree that damage to the reasoning centers of the brain would naturally result in irrational behavior.

What did I say that she would dissagree with? (By rationalist, I mean one who follows the philosophy of rationalism, if that has something to do with it).

My misunderstanding then. But Rand herself does say that man is a rational being - but that reason is volitional. Her presentation of the idea seems to be one of an 'inherent quality', mine is just a derivation from biology. Both result in the same conclusion about human behavior. Acting rationally is volitional.

Well, yeah, anything that is inherent in a human has to have some biological root to it. So I agree with this--one implies the other.

I think the statement - "I disagree" - misses the point of have a _debate_. It might be a good conversation stopper, and it might stop my blood pressure from rising exponentially, but it's not going to convince anyone of anything. And I really don't see a point in an _exchange_ of ideas where no attempt is made to persuade someone. But that is just a personal opinion.

Then I missunderstood what you meant. I thought you were saying that you didn't enjoy it. I argue because I enjoy debate (as long as its worth it), not because people anger me. So I thought you were saying that you didn't like doing it or something--this probably isn't the case then.

Well, my specific usage of the word 'reason' is often contextually based, but, for an epistomological definitinon, I cleave pretty close to Rand.

True, but all the context definitions should still fit into the abstract one.

Reason is the faculty of the mind that collects, identifies, and correlates the perceptions of the senses, and reduces them to conceptualizations. The process by which this is done is referred to as logic, which is itself defined as the argument (Rand calls it 'the art' ) to non-contradictory identification.

Yeah, this looks right to me, though art seems better to me... or maybe 'the method of', even better.

Back to stradler...
The reason that he wanted public funding in the first place was because he thought men could not reason. The reason he thought this was because he never saw a good purpose to science in the first place.

I saw this all the time in college. One of my professors said this: (when talking about a business buying someting from a programmer) "And this is another example of the Business man taking advantage of the good programmer". I felt like raising my hand and saying "Excuse me, I think you are stepping on bullshit". There is a reason he was teaching and not working...

Science has got to have a purpose, and that purpose should be the individuals rational self interest. The whole comet thing would be different in a completely free economy--where rationality is required to get by for each individual... not just the ones supporting everyone else.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:Maybe that's true, but it would be an inherent fault in both my and Rand's definitions. Her fiction is full of characters acting rationally from their own false premises (acting rationally but not reasonably).

No. Rand does not have any examples of this, and would never say such a thing. Their actions follows from their ideas, but that does not make them rational. Taken to its outmost (with no mention of whether you do this), it would mean pragmatism. Everyone is rational, but yet we live in different worlds due to our different premises (ideas). And our premises is nothing we can do anything with, as they are but automatic perceptions aoutomatically adapted with our reason and logic.

No. Rand does not have any examples of this, and would never say such a thing. Their actions follows from their ideas, but that does not make them rational. Taken to its outmost (with no mention of whether you do this), it would mean pragmatism. Everyone is rational, but yet we live in different worlds due to our different premises (ideas). And our premises is nothing we can do anything with, as they are but automatic perceptions aoutomatically adapted with our reason and logic.

That is one of the things that concepts do for humans: Mental space savers. One has to consciously break down a premise to make it not automatic. But too much of this at once would overload the consciousness (crow epistomology).

No. Rand does not have any examples of this, and would never say such a thing. Their actions follows from their ideas, but that does not make them rational. Taken to its outmost (with no mention of whether you do this), it would mean pragmatism. Everyone is rational, but yet we live in different worlds due to our different premises (ideas). And our premises is nothing we can do anything with, as they are but automatic perceptions aoutomatically adapted with our reason and logic.

To coin the phrase from Tolthar....I disagree

What I disagree with is the way we are interchanging the words reason and rational.

In many cases, the word rational is being contextually used to mean something akin to 'orderly', as opposed to 'random'. It is used to mean that a person's actions flow logically with their premises. As you stated yourself - Everyone is _rational_, it is the 'worlds' (by which, I assume you mean something akin to a full conceptualization of reality with philosophy) that are different, because they are built on different starting premises.

So it would be better, in your statement, to say that everyone is _rational_, but not everyone is _reasonable_, and define reasonable as that state which is both rational AND derived from correct premises.

Using that definition, I think what I stated was perfectly fine. Rand has characters that act rationally, within the boundaries of their mistaken premises. The problem is they are not reasonable because their premises are wrong.

I also utterly reject the idea that we can 'do nothing with our premises'; this would imply that we are unaware that our perceptions could be flawed, and would render us unable to learn anything. Once a specific premise was set, it could never be unlearned.

We are creatures of experience - perceptions change as physical stimulus changes. Our brains can process new physical stimulus (new ideas, new perceptions) into new conceptualizations, which affects our Reason. Logically, if we have a perception that presents us with a new premise, and a memory that presents us with an old premise, and they are contradictory, then we may set them against each other and, through logic, remove the one that contradicts reality. We can "check our premises".

AT

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I don't think stadler's main flaw was just taking public money--that was just a side effect of his main flaw. His main flaw was thinking that science has no relation to business, and that, science should exist without any purpose pertaining to the economy. This is the reason his institute never got anywhere after he made that move. Science has got to have a purpose.

Stadler is mentioned once in Galts' speech. Allow me to quote the entire section:

Some of you might plead the excuse of your ignorance, of a limited mind and a limited range. But the damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality, the men who were willing to sell their intelligence into cynical servitude to force: the contemptible breed of those mystics of science who profess a devotion to some sort of 'pure knowledge'—the purity consisting of their claim that such knowledge has no practical purpose on this earth—who reserve their logic for inanimate matter, but believe that the subject of dealing with men requires and deserves no rationality, who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since there is no such thing as 'non-practical knowledge' or any sort of 'disinterested' action, since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on this earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness. Do you hear me, Dr. Robert Stadler?

As far as I understand this passage, his main fault was in seeking a "pure knowledge" divorced from practical purpose. To do this he had to use force, i.e. "taking public money".

The same point is repeated in "To young scientists".

If you do not care to know—well, I would like to say that there is a character in Atlas Shrugged who was dedicated to you as a warning, with the sincere hope that it would not be necessary. His name is Dr. Robert Stadler.
Many things have happened since March of this year to demonstrate the ultimate consequences of the science-ethics dichotomy.

As for the passage AT must be thinking of, is at the end of "The Egoist", during the time that Galt is held captive. But the text does not support AT's conclusion. He begins with saying how the looters don't know reason, only force. And then, he had to force them offcourse. But he is helpless against them (here you have the malevolent universe premise), the looters have all the power. Only by tricking them to doing the goods bidding, can the good live. He had no choice. What Galt was asking was impossible.

One can't live by logic! Do you hear me? … Don't look at me! You're asking the impossible! Men can't exist your way! You permit no moments of weakness, you don't allow for human frailties or human feelings! What do you want of us? Rationality twenty-four hours a day, with no loophole, no rest, no escape? …

In fact, Galt is the one to blame, not him. And one can just look at what ended up with Galt, because here he is in captive under the brutes. Clearly his principles does not work (thus also revealing his pragmatism, paradoxically enough). Galt has to be destroyed. That is what Stadler is saying.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:In many cases, the word rational is being contextually used to mean something akin to 'orderly', as opposed to 'random'. It is used to mean that a person's actions flow logically with their premises.

I object to that. Reason and logic is not the same thing, yet you treat them as the same. You are here using a rationalistic understanding of reason, which I offcourse objects to. It is no better than if you were to use say Kan't understanding of "reason" on the works of Rand. For almost everyone else it does not make any sense, and with you using the rationalistic understanding it too does not make sense.

Reasonable I define (and the OED agrees with me) that reasonable is "in accordance with reason". Hence, it is wrong to seperate the two.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:I also utterly reject the idea that we can 'do nothing with our premises'; this would imply that we are unaware that our perceptions could be flawed, and would render us unable to learn anything. Once a specific premise was set, it could never be unlearned.

I object to this. Our perceptions are not flawed, in error, et cetera. That is an extremely dangerous premise to accept.

Back to stradler...
The reason that he wanted public funding in the first place was because he thought men could not reason. The reason he thought this was because he never saw a good purpose to science in the first place.

In the interest of brevity, I'll skip the other stuff - I don't know that we are actually arguing at any cross purposes in any of them. So I'll stick with Stadler, because it possess good questions.

I completely disagree with you that HE never saw a good purpose to science. I think his understanding of what science is, and what its value and purpose are, are very clear. I think the issue he was struggling with is that, if humans are irrational, they would not be able to understand the purpose of science. In a way, he's arguing that he's the only one that understands what is really going on.

He takes public funding because, having arrived at the idea that humans are irrational, he ceases to have an reason not to exploit their ignorance. In effect, he is taking their money to protect science from them. The Science Institute is designed as a safe haven to protect the progress of science from the irrational public.

I saw this all the time in college. One of my professors said this: (when talking about a business buying someting from a programmer) "And this is another example of the Business man taking advantage of the good programmer". I felt like raising my hand and saying "Excuse me, I think you are stepping on bullshit". There is a reason he was teaching and not working...

Whoa there...back up a bit. I'm not sure I like the implication of that last sentence. You don't think teaching is working? I think Hugh Askton would have a lot to say to you.

What greater work can there be that giving knowledge to the ignorant? To assisting individuals in molding their minds to reasoned through and gainful production by giving them the facts they need to accomplish it? I think you do teaching a great disservice by suggesting it is not work. On the contrary, it is one of the most important pieces of work a person can do.

Now, as to the rest of this professor's comments - do you think he's taking a 'philosophical view' or a 'value of work' view? Was he dismissing business as a whole, or suggesting that this particular businessman was 'exploiting' the programmer by offering him less than the programmer's work was actually worth? There is some important context missing here.

If that programmer is a student, and that student has not fully learned what he needs to value his own work, then it is certainly possible that some unscrupulous business man could come in an offer less than a fair value for that work. Since I don't know enough of the context to disprove this possibility, I can't arrive at your same conclusion. Probably, you know something about the exchange I am not privy to.

Science has got to have a purpose, and that purpose should be the individuals rational self interest. The whole comet thing would be different in a completely free economy--where rationality is required to get by for each individual... not just the ones supporting everyone else.

I think Science contains its own purpose - it is the method by which we derive knowledge from physical observation. I am assuming you probably mean the 'enterprise' of science - all the research going in, the scientists getting paid, etc. - all that knowledge must have some clear and present utility to justify it. The 'comet' example was an argument against that - there is presently no 'immediate' profit in such a survey, even if it might be valuable later.

So my quesiton to you is - in your example of a 'completely free economy', how do you see a resolution to the very example I outlined. How is such a process 'profitable for business', and how does a business or individual justify paying for it?

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:I completely disagree with you that HE never saw a good purpose to science. I think his understanding of what science is, and what its value and purpose are, are very clear. I think the issue he was struggling with is that, if humans are irrational, they would not be able to understand the purpose of science. In a way, he's arguing that he's the only one that understands what is really going on.

He takes public funding because, having arrived at the idea that humans are irrational, he ceases to have an reason not to exploit their ignorance. In effect, he is taking their money to protect science from them. The Science Institute is designed as a safe haven to protect the progress of science from the irrational public.

The citations that I make directly reupudiates this view. He represents the rejection of reason for force, not the opposite.

In the interest of brevity, I'll skip the other stuff - I don't know that we are actually arguing at any cross purposes in any of them. So I'll stick with Stadler, because it possess good questions.

I agree with Petter. The statement I made here was meant to go with the rest of the stuff after it.

Whoa there...back up a bit. I'm not sure I like the implication of that last sentence. You don't think teaching is working? I think Hugh Askton would have a lot to say to you.

Complete missunderstanding:

There is a reason he was teaching and not working...

My emphesis. I didn't say "teachers" I said "he". I know a couple of decent teachers. But I went to a very bad school for computer engineering.

So my quesiton to you is - in your example of a 'completely free economy', how do you see a resolution to the very example I outlined. How is such a process 'profitable for business', and how does a business or individual justify paying for it?

The same way the unable to work (as apposed to the unwilling to work) would get charity. By those who think it is worth it, they would donate. People like you and possbly me.

Quote:
There is a reason he was teaching and not working...

My emphesis. I didn't say "teachers" I said "he". I know a couple of decent teachers. But I went to a very bad school for computer engineering.

I don't see how the distinction resolves the problem. Whether the subject is 'teachers' or 'he', your sentence construction is still creating a distinction between teaching and working, and inclusion of the word 'not' makes that distinction one of opposition.

The meaning of that construction is still that teaching is not work, regardless of subject.

Did you instead mean to imply that what the professor was doing was not actually teaching?

Quote:
So my quesiton to you is - in your example of a 'completely free economy', how do you see a resolution to the very example I outlined. How is such a process 'profitable for business', and how does a business or individual justify paying for it?

The same way the unable to work (as apposed to the unwilling to work) would get charity. By those who think it is worth it, they would donate. People like you and possbly me.

So, in this 'free-economy world', all scientific research which is not immediately profitable is the result of an act of charity. That correctly sums your view?

AT