Re: Re: Objectivity

> > Oh. So you totally deny the value of a formed opinion.
>
> I do not.

In my opinion you do :-)

> > I guess you
> > don't have a favorite color or a favorite dish either, because you're
> > unable to prove that Sushi is better.
> >
>
> I do. But such opinions are ammoral. Whether I prefer blondes or brunettes (or
> both) or Perl or Python (or both), or prefer chocolate icecream or vanilla
> icecream etc. is not a matter of Ethics. This is a matter of taste, which
> varries according to many factors, and is useless to argue about.

Exactly

> However, if someone thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 (i.e: [**] + [**] = [*****]), then
> this opinion is illogical. It can be proven to be incorrect. He is entitled
> to his opinion, but everyone can tell it's a lie.

Can't argue with you on your math exercise. Just remember that what
you take for granted (2+2=4) is based on a set of axioms [1], which
you accept on faith.

> Likewise, Randians believe that Ethics is a matter of logic and very basic
> facts of existence like the biological nature of men and women.

In that case I guess I am not a Randian, because I believe that ethics
are derived from moral values and these have no logical basis, are not
uniform across our society, other societies and along time. Actually
that's not entirely true - there is some logic to moral values -
having moral values enables our existence as a society.

> > I think that definition sucks. I don't accept it. In my reality
>
> In your reality? Arik, in my reality, I didn't receive this message of yours
> and didn't reply. Sorry, but we share the same reality. Or else interaction
> between us would be impossible.

It's not either-or. Our realities overlap enough so we can converse in
the same language. It does not overlap enough to agree on questions of
the absoluteness of morality, so it seems.

> > invalid. You are entitled to your own opinion. Saying that I am not
> > entitled to one dismisses me in an offensive manner.
>
> Where did I say that you're not entitled to your own opinion? You are of
> course. You are also entitled to think that 2+2=5, or that A = NOT(A) but
> don't try to base a mathematical proof on it or mathematicians will laugh at
> your face.

When did I ever try to prove it? Perhaps I made arguments but not all
arguments are based in logics.

> You have made a claim. You didn't prove this claim. Since it is without a
> proof, and I have some counter-evidence (see my message to Nadav), I can
> assume that this claim is false until I am given some evidence to prove it. I
> can say such claims as "Perl does not scale to large codebases", "All Arabs
> are evil", "Drugs be illegal", etc. but until I prove them, they will remain
> as unproven. If you think otherwise, then you might as well say that "Foreach
> A, A is true and NOT(A) is true", and become all-knowing and get done with
> it.

No. I simply deny your ability to arbitrate moral rules with logic.

> Don't take it personally, you are entitled to think what you want, but I'm
> also entitled to expect you to prove such claims. I won't accept any claim
> without a good evidence, reasoning or proof. Unless, of course claims like "I
> like Mint-flavoured Ice Cream the best", which are ammoral, and a matter of
> taste.

You are not entitled to expect me to prove it. I do not agree with you
on your premise that it is either provable or disprovable.

-- Arik

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Peano_axioms