humanities.philosophy.objectivism Google Group

Re: Oren Boyle Lives?

ro...@embarqmail.com (Ray) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 03:40:02 UT

Hey, isn't oil also natural?
Ban on off-shore drilling expires end of September.
Hope was that with high gasoline prices Congress would, for the first
time since it was enacted (1980's?), not renew the ban.
Now with gas prices dropping, I'm not so sure.
Ray of natural Light

Re: Objetivism has a Labor Theory of Property?

m...@myinboxisbroken.com (Mark N) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 01:29:18 UT

Or you could keep us in suspense, if that's what you prefer! :-)
Actually, I think I've figured out the answer on my own, so no worries.
Mark

Re: Conditional Probability and Contextual Certainty

m...@myinboxisbroken.com (Mark N) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 01:21:44 UT

Fair enough. I don't think there is much that you and I disagree about
here. I think that we're more or less in the same boat, struggling to
unravel the mystery that is the view of those other guys!
Mark
x
x
x
x

Re: The Wonders of Canadian Socialized Medicine

m...@myinboxisbroken.com (Mark N) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 01:07:42 UT

Mal, you are a true Master of Trolling. I feel as if I'm watching a
great artist at work! It's an honor and a privilege! :-D
Mark
b
o
t
f
o
o
d

Re: Conditional Probability and Contextual Certainty

markyo...@ns.sympatico.ca (Mark Young) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 00:43:12 UT

Mark Sieving:
] I think the difference between the positions is most apparent in
] the case where a belief or classification turns out to be mistaken.
] A justificationist (J-ist) can say, "I was wrong, but my belief was
] justified." A CRist can only say, "I was wrong."
Nah. A CR-ist can say "I was wrong about X, but I was right that X

Re: Conditional Probability and Contextual Certainty

markyo...@ns.sympatico.ca (Mark Young) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 00:27:39 UT

Mark Young:
]] Justifications are not generally things we "look for". [...]
Mark N:
] I assume that what you mean is that we don't deliberately set out
] -- "on a mission," so to speak -- to find a justification for a
] predetermined conclusion. [...]
That's right.
]] So at no point are we actually "looking for a justification".

Re: The Wonders of Canadian Socialized Medicine

malen...@hotmail.com (Malrassic Park) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 00:22:40 UT

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:14:44 -0700, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
I will if you will.
Which pundit told you that?
You got that idea from a contrarian pundit.
If someone informs me that airline deregulation began with the Carter
administration, then I'll check some other sources and find myself

Re: Nine Republicans vote for Bush impeachment

b...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) — Thu, 08 Aug 2008 00:12:52 UT

Klein goes through a bitter tirade but doesn't actually challenge
anything I said. Definitely sounds like a personal problem.
I state facts.
I cited a specific webpage where Paul denounces U.S. policy in
Afghanistan.
I know.
What about the Liberty?
ARI asserts America's right to confront long term dangers and

Re: Conditional Probability and Contextual Certainty

markyo...@ns.sympatico.ca (Mark Young) — Wed, 08 Aug 2008 21:08:01 UT

Mark Young:
]]]] Nah, that's not quite right. The justificationist says "I
]]]] believe this because I've done these tests." The CRist says
]]]] "This is gnowledge because it has passed these tests."
Mark Sieving:
]]] So where does the justification come in?
Mark Young:
]] Right after the word "because".

Re: The Wonders of Canadian Socialized Medicine

rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein) — Wed, 08 Aug 2008 20:14:44 UT

Get a grip. Firstly, facts don't depend on any pundit (except facts
concerning whatever some pundit wrote of course).
Secondly, what in the world gave you the impression that I would "want
to believe" any pundit, let alone use that to determine what I believe
are the facts of the matter? In case you haven't noticed, I'm an

Re: The Wonders of Canadian Socialized Medicine

malen...@hotmail.com (Malrassic Park) — Wed, 08 Aug 2008 19:34:54 UT

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:26:31 -0700, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
..
..
..
..
The "facts," that is, determined by whichever pundit you *want* to
believe.

Re: Objetivism has a Labor Theory of Property?

d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com (David Friedman) — Wed, 08 Aug 2008 19:06:34 UT

In article
<c0cb927a-df20-4f63-b03e-706b2 1067...@m73g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com>,
Abba Lerner.
I mean that his approach to economic theory was closer to that of the
Chicago school than Rothbard's was.
No. Economic theories might lead to policy views--but since the theory
isn't the only input to the policy view, the same theoretical approach

Re: The Wonders of Canadian Socialized Medicine

malen...@hotmail.com (Malrassic Park) — Wed, 08 Aug 2008 18:26:10 UT

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:50:51 -0700, Puppet_Sock
The problem is: there is no such thing. Or if there is, you'd have to
pay them a mint.

Re: When Agent Cooper knows or cares diddly about the policy alternatives of Presidential Candidates . . .

rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein) — Wed, 08 Aug 2008 17:43:10 UT

On Aug 27, 12:19 pm, Terrorist Fist Jab <bobvogel2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That's a pretty intricate point to be making with something like a
handle.
Whatever floats your boat, though; thanks for explaining.
jk

Re: Conditional Probability and Contextual Certainty

rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein) — Wed, 08 Aug 2008 17:38:38 UT

My sentiments precisely!
Yes, that last is what I would say.
I think that's right, basically. I'm not a good one for definitions
of wide philosophical positions, because they alter so much between
individuals.
For that matter, I'm not even sure why a falsificationist wouldn't be
a type of justificationist. I stopped studying this stuff in depth