Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Rebuttal to Jim Balter
Message-ID: <1811@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:25:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1811
Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:25:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:17:22 EDT
References: <253@yetti.UUCP> <27500129@ISM780B.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 365

> 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. [JIM BALTER]

And to think, I was just going to compliment you on your extremely insightful
article on the nature of scientific method.  (I still will:  I highly
recommend it as perhaps the most light shed on an overworked topic in a long
time. <27500128@ISM780B.UUCP>, "Weird Science (response)")  When I respond by
saying "You betchum red rider" to a vacuous assertion, I do so out of tiredness
at hearing the same bogus points over again, and out of having nothing else to
say to a false assertion.  (What else can one say?)  I am frankly upset by
your claim that I "refuse to support" what I say.  I spend a lot of time going
over the reasons for my statements, and if there are questions about them
(rather than "you must be wrong because you disagree with me") or points that
counter what I say, then they should be brought up.  The failure to do so
seems indicative to me that the total substance of my detractors is solely
their dislike for my positions (because they are looking for certain
conclusions), resulting in vindictive namecalling on their part.

> Rather, when pressed hard you often resort to insults and declamations.

Why don't you show me some examples of my resorting to insults.  I insult those
who insult me for having done so.  I'd be interested in hearing any other
examples of insults that I heaved unsolicited by previous abuse.

> 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.

Since you have done so rather well in your other article, why don't you
volunteer to do what I have thus far been unable to do?

> 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.

Frankly, I'm not as patient as you would seem to be regarding such
demonstrations.  I have been through such things time and again, and grow weary
of repeating myself for those who seem uninterested in listening.  You are
quite lucky in that you are smart enough not to write as much as I choose to.
You can select what you want to write about.  So could I, I guess, but I'm
an idiot:  when it comes to someone like Ellis or Wingate taking my words
and twisting them out of shape, I feel obliged to respond in kind and in full.
And if my anger at those who would make my sentences into pretzels spills over
into conversations with others, it is an accident creditable to frustration.
Since you really have written some excellent stuff about this topic (I'd
say not enough, but I can't force you to write more), and since I probably
won't be posting as much in the future (having returned to school), perhaps
you can do the job you find me unfit for.

>>>       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.

No, Jim, clearly (if anything) he was saying that my 10000 articles were not
enough, which means to me that he didn't read them in the first place.
His comments were that "it would take a year to go through it all".  He had
a year (or more, if he's talking about my last 10000 (??) articles) to read
it in the first place.  He obviously didn't.  Since I "can't" do so?
Why is it beginning to sound like you are engaging in the same tactics as
Ellis and Wingate?

>>>       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.

And since you have never been able to show the blatant obviousness of it,
I guess YOU haven't been doing YOUR job...

> 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,

Now THAT'S what I call assuming your conclusion, especially in presentation.
Lump someone whose opinion you don't like together with someone easily
debunked, as if to associate the two.  You have some nerve talking about my
tactics.  And to think, you did write such an eloquent article.

> 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.

Then YOU do what I have tried to do, at the level I have tried to do it, and
YOU take the lumps from the Ellises and the Wingates, and tell me how well you
come out, and how long it takes till YOU are sick of restating the obvious
for those who simply aren't willing to listen.  You obviously do it better
than I could (I know that may sound sarcastic, but it is meant seriously.)

> As is typical of your style, in your paragraph above you use mockery and
> condescending judgement.

Pray tell, where?

> 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.

Funny, in your own article (if I recall), you berate the very thing I have been
berating:  the working backwards from conclusions that you like to rebuild
axioms so that the desired conclusion can still be reached.  That is what
free will junkies have been doing.  If that is a "name" that I have called
someone, it accurately describes the beliefs and the actions taken, reminiscent
of someone with a drug dependency, doing anything in order to get the drug.

>>>       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?

It was the only reason provided.  It was the only reason you provided.

> Do you really feel that if many people find you condescending, the only
> possible reason is a weakness in each of them?

If I'm not being condescending, it would seem so.

> Can you not conceive of a weakness in your own personality?

Only the ones I have, which are plentiful enough without you subjectively
adding more.

> I admit to a fair amount of arrogance;  I find many who interact here to be
> foolish, naive, "inferior".

That has come across in this article.

> 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.

Apparently, judging from the reactions of some of my detractors, they would
seem to lack your objectivity and scientific orientation, and they react
by detraction.

> 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.

And I would say that the same applies to you.  I know from whereof you speak.

>>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.

On the contrary, it is essential to the argument at hand.  We are talking
about assumptions and beliefs without substantiation.  Since we are
unable to talk about facts in relation to these, what are our alternatives?
Accept everything everyone says as fact?  Or question the derivation of the
beliefs and how they were obtained, the assumptions behind them?

> 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.

The difference is in this case they have no bearing on the ideas at hand.
In the case of free will advocates and believers in other wishful thinking
motifs, the reasons for believing, the attitudes, the preconceptions, ALL
must (!!) be subjected to question.

>>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.

And indeed they are because all the things I described above have taken
place as done by free will advocates time and again.

> 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;

I think I and others have described the ridiculousness of taking a vote among
philosophers and unilaterally changing the meaning of a word to "get" something
to exist.  And I think Charles Dodgson is spinnng in his grave as a result
of the chronic misuse of the Humpty Dumpty story, when in fact those who
at liberty redefine words for their use are hte real Humpty Dumptys here.
I have gone into why this is so endlessly, with no one (apparently not you
either) listening.  So why bother?

> "wanting free will at any price" is a very unscientific, condescending
> judgement.

And one (unfortunately) borne out by their actions.

> 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.

Good thing you're not the type to engage in "ad hominem" attacks.  :-( At least
when I'm accused of it, I've used a descriptive term (like "wishful thinker"
or "free will junkie") and backed it up, rather than using a universal debasive
insult like "jerk" because I simply don't like what was said.  Fact remains,
and this is supported by Ellis' own extracts from his philosophical faves,
the definition found in the dictionary (not just mine), the one that says
that free will is the ability to make a decision regardless of constraints
which include environment AND internal biology, has indeed been rather
universal.  (Why do you think religionists talk of free will in terms of an
ability to decide between right and wrong regardless of one's physical state,
choosing to sin or not despite a physical desire to do so?)

>>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]

Nothing like a boldfaced distortion of what I say to make my night!

> 	Everything I say is obvious or is based on a well-established
> 	body of knowledge.
> 	    [arrogant and unsupported]

As arrogant and unsupported as your statements about me?

> 	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]

Or did the REAL statement I made, [a conclusion that the only way one could
reach such a conclusion would be to hold certain assumptions (i.e., be a
wishful thinker) or deliberately and repeatedly (as witnessed) do anything
necessary to "make" the point of view true (junkie)], did THAT statement
merit an insulting remark in reply?

> 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.

As opposed to you, who, with this cordial and enlightening example of
"constructive criticism", represents the voice of reason.

> 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.

It caused me to reevaluate you quite a lot.  I still recommend the article I
referred to earlier as perhaps one of the finest articles written in this
forum in a long time (<27500128@ISM780.UUCP>), but I find your
conclusion-jumping, your vacuous insults at regular intervals, to be the
hallmark of boorishness.  I find it hard to reconcile someone who can write
so well in one article with the abusive person I have just encountered.

> 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.

I will not take your advice, and I will post a reply to your article anyway.
Without having once called you a "jerk", an "ass", or even a "wishful
thinker".  :-(
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com