Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!greg
From: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <13006@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 17 Jan 90 18:02:52 GMT
References: <8284@portia.Stanford.EDU> <9001162348.AA11695@apee.ogi.edu.> <8321@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 72

In article <8321@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes:
}    In article <12986@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>,  greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
} (Gregory Nowak) writes:
}>Please explain to all of us...why
}>sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for
}>objectivist postings.


}>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings
}>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. 
}
}     As far as I can tell, neither sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta
}is inappropriate for Objectivist postings.  All the postings to sci.philosophy.
}tech by Objectivists have been technical, scientific expositions, from my
}postings on the sciences of mathematics and physics to other postings on
}the science of ethics.  I have never understood why technical discussions
}of Objectivism are less appropriate in sci.philosophy.tech than those of other
}philosophies.

There is no "technical discussion of other philosophies" in 'tech. You
misunderstand the newsgroup. If you see no distinction between posting
objectivist articles to 'meta and to 'tech, please perform a courtesy
for those who do see a distinction, and are bothered by their
appearance in 'tech, by posting them to 'meta. The reason that they
are inappropriate is that 'tech is not for "technical, scientific,
expositions": leaving aside the fact that ethics is not a science,
sci.philosophy.tech was created explicitly for discussing "technical
applications of philosophy to science". The charter ruled out
explicitly general maunderings known as philosophy of science, (eg
Kuhnian stuff), and gave examples of appropriate topics as metalogic,
formal languages, etc. The phrase "technical philosophy" has a
specific meaning; you can't just make up your own. There may in fact
be "technical discussions of Objectivism", but they aren't appropriate
to sci.philosophy.tech; right now, they belong in
talk.philosophy.misc. If objectivism has a position on the issue of
higher cardinals, then that would be an appropriate discussion of a
facet of objectivism in 'tech. What we have now is a complete
exposition of Objectivism in 'tech on the shaky ground that "it's a
technical philosophy" (irrelevant) "it makes ethics a science"
(irrelevant) or "it discusses science too" (also irrelevant).

}     However, the propriety of Objectivist postings on a given newsgroup is
}not the issue.  It has become increasingly clear that a newsgroup specifically
}for discussions on Objectivism is needed.  Objectivist postings to sci.
}philosophy.tech bother the others on that subgroup, for whatever reason.

Because they're inappropriate there, as we've been saying for months.

}The only way to be sure that this type of problem cannot arise again is to
}create a specifically Objectivist newsgroup, not ask students of the philosophy
}to move to a newsgroup which is more appropriate.

It may be true that this is the only permanent solution. Until this
happy day comes to pass, could the objectivists indicate their good
faith by departing 'tech, where they are an annoyance, and temporarily
moving to sci.philosophy.meta, where they will bother no one, since
there is no one there to bother? You yourself said you saw no
distinction in appropriateness of objectivist postings to the two
groups. So why not perform a courtesy over which you have no qualms?

}     I fear that, regardless of where students of Objectivism post, we will
}have to deal with people who wish to disparage our ideas.  However, if we
}have a newsgroup of our own, we will at least be able to avoid antagonizing
}those who are willing to leave us alone.

Gracious of you to note the distinction. If you moved into 'meta as a
stopgap measure, you could avoid antagonizing those who are willing to
leave you alone as early as tomorrow.

...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg

                           Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540