Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!gsmith From: gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Abuses of the net and Talk.rand Message-ID: <517@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 8-Dec-86 07:52:13 EST Article-I.D.: cartan.517 Posted: Mon Dec 8 07:52:13 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Dec-86 20:57:51 EST References: <8612080908.AA08813@jade.berkeley.edu> Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley Lines: 104 In article <8612080908.AA08813@jade.berkeley.edu> eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) writes: >In article <485@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes: >> I would very much like to see a *single* quote supporting your >>statement that Mr. Ellis has proposed that Objectivists should "be removed >>from the newsgroup." >The following is takes from article <424@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, one of >Mr. Ellis' recent postings to talk.philosophy.misc: >> Personally, I don't "oppose" Randroidism any more than I oppose Christian >> Science or Krishna Consciousness. I just don't think that net.philosophy >> is the place for the dissemination of propaganda for cults or ideologies. >> Get your propaganda out of here and into talk.religion or talk.politics >> where it belongs. This doesn't say that Objectivists should be removed from talk.philosophy. misc. What it says is that the kind of claptrap you write (for example) is not philosophy and does not belong there. Is making this sort of comment pro-censorship? Really, Mr. Mozes! The point is that the purpose of the group is philosophy, which requires giving philosophical arguments. Since you give us dogmatic (and false) claims such as "mathematics is the science of measurement" which you then fail to give arguments for, you clearly don't belong on that group. The fact that I think that does not in any way entail the notion that I wish to censor you or prevent you from posting there. What I would like to do is teach you how philosophical argument should be done. I find it amusing that one of the net.old-timers popped into the group, saw our harsh anti-Objectivist flames and went into a dither. It was suggested by us, between epithets, that he read Rand's "philosophy", and upon doing so he concluded that it was total garbage, one major fallacy per page, and gave up reading the book as a result. This was after telling us in e-mail what close-minded anti-fringe jerks we were. The point is that if there are flames, perhaps it is for a reason. One must be careful not to judge too quickly or superficially that "censorship" is what is intended by someone who is merely pointing out that someone else is a fool. >In article <1864.utah-gr.UUCP> donn@utah-gr.UUCP writes: >>I note that Ellis has publicly welcomed discussion in the philosophy >>group from Objectivists who could concede that other systems of thought >>were worthy of interest. >Could Mr. Seeley produce any quote supporting THAT? I don't recall Mr. >Ellis ever making any such statement. From: ellis@peoples-park (the late Michael Ellis) Subject: Re: defining Mathematics Message-ID: <457@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> |>> Now, is this "formalist" approach to mathematics valid? I submit that |>> it isn't. It is based on wrong philosophical principles - clearly on |>> rationalism, the idea that meaningful knowledge can be gained without |>> referring to reality, and also on logical atomism and the |>> conventional view of logic. [Eyal Mozes] | | "Wrong philosophical principles" -- this is religion, and does not | belong in this newsgroup unless you are prepared to support it | without resorting to cultish doctrines and appeals to the authority | of the Holy Texts of Rand. | .... | As to Ayn Rand's philosophic notes, I think we all agree it's too | bad you folks don't have your own newsgroup where such things could be | posted. Have you considered posting requests for the creation | of "talk.rand" into news.groups? I don't think Randian thought | should NEVER appear in net.philosophy, but I do think find that the | enormous vocabulary gap between Randians and everybody else, as well | as the tendency of Randians to declare their doctrines as matters of | indisputable fact, will invariably lead to hostility (not to | discourage cross postings between talk.philosophy.misc & the proposed | talk.rand). I think this should make clear that what Michael is objecting to is not the presence of Objectivists, but the refusal by some such as Eyal Mozes to do philosophy when on the philosophy group. This sort of flame happens all the time on many different groups, and is not "pro-censorship". > Considering that no Objectivist >ever said anything that can be even REMOTELY construed as implying that >other systems of thought aren't worthy of interest, Is Rand an Objectivist? Did she not call Bertrand Russell's epistemology "gibber", did she not call Kant (of all people) "the most evil man who ever lived" or some such thing? Did she not dismiss Rawl's "Theory of Justice" (a very clear and interesting book, by the way) as "utter nonsense" WITHOUT reading it? Mechanically dismissing other systems of thought is intrinsic to Objectivism, as far as I can make out. >Anyway, even if he did say it, my point about Mr. Smith's double >standard is just as valid. This "double standard" argument is completely bogus. I don't support censorship, and you admit yourself you can find nothing whatever I have said to support the idea I do. This is like saying I have a double standard because I treat intelligent people with more respect than I do you. This is a standard, yes: but not a "double" one. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason