Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Sci
Message-ID: <27500129@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 06:38:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500129
Posted: Tue Sep 24 06:38:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:41:04 EDT
References: <253@yetti.UUCP>
Lines: 222
Nf-ID: #R:yetti:-25300:ISM780B:27500129:000:13423
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Sep 24 06:38:00 1985


>>       You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming
>>       that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments.
>
>Hey, who is making the claim of something completely contrary to scientific
>thought and knowledge?  Me?  Or you?  Where does the burden of proof lie?
>
>>       [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!]
>
>You betchum, red rider.

Rich, thanks for giving us once again a brilliant illustration of your power
of argument.  Many of your demonstrations of the correctness of your positions
are about as strong as "you betchum, red rider".  I am not saying that your
positions are wrong; but I am saying that you refuse to support them
scientifically and objectively.  Rather, when pressed hard you often resort to
insults and declamations.  As for "who is making the claim ... completely
contrary ...?" I don't think anyone is, except for your claims *about people*,
and there the burden of proof is on you.  As for the burden of proof for
philosophical arguments, it is on everyone who engages in them, even you,
*no matter how obvious you think your statements are*; if they are challenged,
they are not obvious.  If the scientific method is challenged, the burden is
on anyone who chooses to defend it.  Philosophy of science is really damn
tricky business, and dismissing questions about it by calling the questioners
names is not *philosophically* defensible.  Try explaining just what the
scientific method is, when, where and why it applies, why we trust induction
given Hume's powerful arguments, how to use Occam's Razor and why.  What is
proof?  What is sufficient evidence?  Why do we accept Modus Ponens?  How do
we deal with someone who rejects it?  Why not share your deep thoughts on
these subjects?  *Philosophize* a bit.

>>       This *body of knowledge* you are speaking of: Would you give us
>>       few pointers, so that we can get at it too ?? Just to check whether
>>       or not it is the same *body of knowledge* that Dennett is running
>>       circles around. Could you please summarize this stuff ??
>>       (I *mean* summarize.  pointing at 10,000 articles you have posted
>>       is not good enough. It would take a year to go through all the
>>       little tidbits of statements and distill it to something that
>>       is comprehensible. By your own admission, you type fast, so it
>>       should not be much of a problem). In other words, put your
>>       keyboard where your mouth is. (no cheap pun intended)
>
>In other words, you weren't willing to read what I wrote the first time, so
>now I'm obliged to summarize it ALL because you say so!  No thank you, my
>friend.  Ask some specific questions, get some specific answers, but don't
>play these broad sweeping games with me.

Clearly you were being asked to summarize the body of knowledge you had
referred to, *rather than* repeat your own postings, which can hardly be
considered a body of knowledge.  But since you can't do so, you used a
a typically dishonest method of avoidance, redirection, and attack.

>>       Of course, once you summarize all that, I will tell you
>>       about how modern physics has done away with classical
>>       determinism. I could even recommend few more books from
>>       likes of David Bohm and Max Jammer, for you to dismiss without
>>       even reading.
>
>I'll summarize this:  it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for
>believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim
>"science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point
>for me, so I'll believe THAT one".  Funny, isn't that a perfect example
>of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you
>accuse me of:  "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a
>determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!!
>YAY!!!!!"

Rich, while some may think you wrong for believing in the work of science,
I don't think the person you responded to has indicated that.  Rather,
it is *your claim* that what you say is based on science, that is questioned.
The only thing I have seen you offer is a single quotation from a single
dictionary of only one of the contained definitions of free will, coupled
with a blatantly obvious (to me) misinterpretation of that definition.
One of the basic requirements of the scientific method is that a scientist's
work, to be considered valid, must use acceptable methods and be based on
accepted and validated logic.  Your methods, at least as illustrated in this
forum, are not scientific, scientifically presented, or accepted by the
community.  No scientist can stand alone and say "I used proper methods
and logic and therefore what I say must be true even if few agree with me"
because this does not allow for the *possibility that that scientist is wrong*.
The scientist *may* be correct, but the power of the scientific method lies
in *verification*; dropping that requirement leads to a proliferation of
Von Danikens and Rich Rosens, all claiming access to a truth that the
"authorities" deny.  Now I do believe that Rich Rosen is more rational
than Von Daniken, but I would be hard pressed to demonstrate it to someone
else, given the similarity of arrogant tone and approach.

As is typical of your style, in your paragraph above you use mockery and
condescending judgement.  But one who *consistently* applies scientific
method, who isn't just trying to "score points", should attempt to understand
what the modern "body of scientific knowledge" has to say.  You *assume*
that the only way in which classical determinism can be rejected is by
asserting acausality.  But *science* seems to indicates that, in our universe,
a past leads to equally likely futures, only one of which is our present.
Thus, our current situation was *caused*, but not *determined*.  The smooth
4-dimensional space-time continuum simply isn't any longer a sufficient model,
any more than Newton's Absolute Space was a sufficient model after the
findings of the 19th century.  It is only your clinging to a classical notion,
maintaining a model that fits the universe, not as you would LIKE it to be,
but as it seems it must be given your current knowledge and imagery, that
leads you make the statements you do.  Of course, you are in good company:
Einstein clung to that world view harder than anyone; "Der Herrgott wurfelt
nicht" is a pretty strong bit of "wishful thinking".  However, by employing a
multiple worlds theory, one can still avoid that uncomfortable randomness
without contradicting the nearly overwhelming evidence of non-determinism in
the classical sense, embracing a wider notion of completeness that probably
would have satisfied Einstein.  Note that the multiple worlds view cannot be
demonstrated to be true or false, but it is a preferable model to one
involving randomness.  Einstein's rejection was not *simply* wishful thinking;
there are very powerful reasons to reject randomness in scientific models,
just as there are very powerful reasons to reject action at a distance no
matter how strong the evidence (at times it has seemed quite strong), as there
are strong reasons for maintaining a mechanical view of the world and to
assume the validity of induction.  These reasons have to do with completeness
and efficiency of descriptive ability; Occam's Razor honed to a very fine
edge.  There may be disagreements as to how the world works in these areas,
but the bases of the disagreements run quite deep.  I haven't seen any
evidence that *you* have great insight or knowledge here; your reaction should
be to seek such knowledge and insight, not to call people names, mock them, or
reject their statements out of hand.

>>       I have no problem with your ideas. What I do not like is
>>       your condescending tone, your passing *your* *ideas* as well
>>       established *knowns*, and your infuriating remarks. (free-will-
>>       junkies ??? Wishful thinkers ??? Is this name calling or what?)
>
>If I am wrong about what I am saying being "well established knowns", why
>don't YOU summarize where I go "wrong"?   If my tone seems condescending,
>it seems that the only reason for such a perception is that what I say runs
>counter to your personal beliefs, and that is taken as some sort of personal
>attack.

Why does it seem "that the only reason ..."?  You mean seems to you?
Do you really feel that if many people find you condescending, the only
possible reason is a weakness in each of them?  Can you not conceive of
a weakness in your own personality?  I admit to a fair amount of arrogance;
I find many who interact here to be foolish, naive, "inferior".
But I also find many to be quite clever, well-educated, thought-provoking,
open-minded.  When a large number of people with minds I respect criticize
me in a similar way, I will react defensively at first, but my objectivity
and scientific orientation leads to me consider it to be significant evidence,
and I start to reexamine my own behavior.  I suggest that you, Rich,
have been very unobjective and unscientific toward your own behavior and
attitude.  I may be wrong; but if you do not carefully and objectively
consider the possibility that I am not, then you have rejected science
where it touches you most.

>Wishful thinkers is an accurate label applied to anyone who works
>backwards from a conclusion they want, to build distorted axioms about
>the world and then say "See?  There is this thing I said I believed in!"

You constantly assume and claim *motive* about others; that is ad hominem.
You speak about the thinker rather than the thought.  That is where the
objection lies.  You may respond that I am being ad hominem in this article;
but it is my intent to speak about *you*, *your attitudes*, *your effect*
on the tone of conversation in this forum, but not about the validity of your
ideas.  I will only talk about accuracy of your ideas in their own terms.
But if you claim validity of your ideas in terms other than logical, then
I will respond in kind.  If you speak with the language of
Principia Mathematica, *then* you will earn response in kind.

>And free will junkies seems quite appropriate when referring to people who
>want free will at any price:  distorting the English language, contorting
>science to their own ends. If that's not the behavior of a junkie, I don't
>know what is.

Rich, you want to justify your claim that someone is analogous to a junkie,
so you describe junkie-like behavior, and say "if that's not the behavior
of a junkie, I don't know what is".  Somehow your construction of a tautology
is supposed to strengthen your argument.  But the argument is not whether
junkies are junkies, but whether *the people you are talking about*
are junkies.  You think they want free will at any price because of the
way they distort the language.  But it doesn't follow; they may merely
have misunderstood the language or its implications; "wanting free will at any
price" is a very unscientific, condescending judgement.  You argue that
they distort the language, by quoting one dictionary definition and
interpreting it in a certain way, and frequently repeating it as
"*the* definition".  But your interpretation is controversial, your definition
only one of many, your dictionary arguably an inferior source for a
philosophical argument, your definition quite arguably not *the* definition
held by the masses or used historically.  You may disagree; but that is what
it is, a *disagreement*.  Calling it "distorting the language" is
unscientific, arrogant, contentious, egotistical, and generally being a jerk.
Such language would never be accepted in any respectable *scientific* forum.

>I guess it's wrong for me to use such names, but OK for you...
>(Says something...)

You seem to be implying that it wasn't ok for him, but then you should
conclude that it wasn't ok for you, and act accordingly.
However, in addition, the situation is not symmetric; rather, it runs
something like

	I believe A about B because of C.
	    [A philosophical statement]

	You say that because you are a junkie and a distorter and a contorter.
	    [An ad hominem statement, since it does not speak strictly in
	    the philosophical language of the first statement, but rather
	    talks about the thinker]
	Everything I say is obvious or is based on a well-established
	body of knowledge.
	    [arrogant and unsupported]

	You are being an arrogant and contentious ass.
	    [A somewhat appropriate response to the above statement,
	    the content of which was name calling, not discussion of
	    A, B, and C]

Now, frankly, Rich, I don't expect this to have much affect upon you.
I expect you to continue to be a disruptive, misdirecting influence
in a forum which could be very deep and interesting.
And I realize that this note is mostly an expression of my anger and
frustration, and may have no positive effect at all.  But perhaps
it will cause you to reevaluate a little.  Also, I would like to encourage
others to *not reply* to contentious notes, even if they contain
good or thought provoking ideas (and I certainly think Rich does often express
such ideas).  This of course applies to my notes too; I certainly want my
irrationality and contentiousness to be discouraged and much as anyone's;
there is no scientific demonstration of a favored ego.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)