Re: Re: Objectivity

On Saturday 21 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> > > Oh. So you totally deny the value of a formed opinion.
> >
> > I do not.
>
> In my opinion you do :-)
>

Prove it! ;-)

> > > 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
>

OK.

> > 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.

I do accept the Peano axioms (which I'm well aware of) on "faith". However, 
they seem to "make sense", and using them one has proven the rest of 
arithmetics and number theory in a consistent fashion, and with no 
contradictions so far. So I can accept them not based on "faith" but based on 
intuition, proof-by-induction and practical science.

As you know it's impossible to prove that all objects on planet earth, without 
intervention will try to go down. However, this is known to be the case by 
induction from many experiments, and from general practice. So we can assume 
it is the case. 

>
> > 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.
>

OK.

As you know, one can think of several different systems of ethics. And in a 
way, we can expect that they would vary in time as technology, economy and 
philosophy progresses. However, as you know, sometimes people can poke large 
holes within ethical systems, showing them to violate more basic, commonly 
accepted assumptions (as I have shown for some of the Ethics proposed by Kant 
and Kierkegaard). As such they can be rejected as false.

While I don't know the precise reasoning, Ayn Rand and later on Neo-Tech have 
claimed to derive a set of absolute ethics using logic and very basic 
assumptions. And I should note that what Neo-Tech says seems to "make a lot 
of sense" to me, and I have concluded that it is a good and fully-integrated 
system of ethics and a proper model of existence.

> > > 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.

The phyiscal world in which we live in is completely shared between us. (I 
hope you agree to that). However, each of us have his own knowledge, 
opinions, thoughts, mental baggage, etc. Some people believe Mao was a heroic 
figure, but you and I both know he was a mass-murderer. (Which a grown-up 
Chinese programmer I talked with, didn't know that is the case, because he 
was never told that). While the facts still stand, everyone has a different 
conception of reality. However, his conception of reality is not reality 
itself, but a mere conception. (All of this avoiding some technicalities as 
the fact that our mind is made of atoms, etc.)

>
> > > 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.
>

OK. Well, I don't. If someone tells me "I think it should be OK to kill 
people", then I could tell him "Fine, would you like it if I kill you?" 
or "If I see you're killing too many people, then I'll kill you so you won't 
end up killing me.". Thus, we're eliminating some falsified ethical rules 
using 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.
>

What isn't provable or disprovable? Trying to guess: if someone makes a claim 
that seems objective (rather than "I think..." or "I like...", etc.) then 
either it is true, false, or cannot be demonstrated to be either true or 
false. And it would be anti-intellectual to think this claim is meaningful 
without demonstrating that it is indeed so.

Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on him.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

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



-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
    -- An Israeli Linuxer


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/