Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!megatest!djones From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: *.philosophy.objectivism Message-ID: <11909@goofy.megatest.UUCP> Date: 2 Feb 90 04:19:19 GMT References: Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca Lines: 34 From article , by bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad): > I'd like to point out that a simultaneous voting on sci.p.o. and > talk.p.o. would be an instance of "the prisoners' dilemma", as > described in e g Robert Axelrod's _The Evolution of Cooperation_. > > In other words, if the people who wants t.p.o. vote no to s.p.o. > and the people who wants t.p.o. vote no to s.p.o., then they may > cancel each other out, and then we'll have no Objectivism newsgroup. > I therefore urge those who want one of the alternatives not to vote > no to the other alternative. > I intend to vote _yes_ to talk.philosophy.objectivism and _no_ to sci.philosophy.objectivism for the simple and obvious reasons that I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism but I would not like to have sci.talk.objectivism. I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex- Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why I abandoned it. Perhaps I might use the exercise of posting to that forum to clarify my own views. Perhaps I might even shed some light on the subject for others. In any case, I think it would be fun to talk it out. I would not like to have sci.philosophy.objectivism because Objectivism is not science or anything like it. Placing it in the sci directory is a dodge to avoid the stigma and limited distribution of the talk- hierarchy. I think it odd that there is a sci.philosophy at all. Philosophy and science, once synonymous, parted ways long ago, with the advent of the scientific method. How does one conduct a repeatable philosophy experiment? How do you make a falsifiable philosophical prediction? Sci.philosophy is as obvious a dodge as sci.aquaria and comp.women. More so. At least no one can reasonably argue that they don't believe in a particular kind of aquarium or that women don't use computers