RoR: Forum

Excellent piece Dustin!

You've stirred up my mind with thoughts!:
It reminds me of the gems of wisdom from Kelley's words on truth and toleration. I'll add insight from that angle after outlining another angle which Adler brought to my attention.

Opinions vs. Facts
You spoke of respecting "opinions" or not, and Adler would then ask if what you are discussing IS a matter of opinion or a matter of fact (there can be no differences of opinion on matters of fact).

The stances we hold are always and only falsifiable via evidence-based reasoning. Popper failed to integrate the last word of that sentence. By promoting "one side of the falsification coin," a pandora's box ensued - where people felt that anything that wasn't the product of experimental science was "up for grabs" as a viable stance. But, as we on this board now know and understand, the product of reasoning leads to truth (when evidence-based).

Toleration vs Acceptance
To tolerate is not to accept, but to endure, and this can - and sometimes should - be done defiantly, and perhaps scornfully. To have and show disdain for inherently dishonest ideas/beliefs is right and good. But it does not necessary extend to having and showing disdain for the person behind the idea (unless, by "sweat, blood, and tears" questioning, you've discovered that they've completely integrated this idea into their self-concept).

So, interjecting "disdain" in human interactions involves a tight-rope walk because there is a human being who is behind these ideas (smashing the idea with a philosophical sledgehammer may injure the person holding on to the idea).

The "opposite of tolerance" is intolerance, a concept which inherently involves either force or distance (2 things inimical to human relations). There is another option: the "opposite of acceptance" is a better position to take when confronted with inherently dishonest ideas (which admittedly, by their nature, are corrosive to the human spirit). This weaker, but not ineffective stance of tolerance-but-not-acceptance has much potential as a stance to adopt for gaining and keeping value.

To recap, perhaps one should scornfully tolerate inherently dishonest ideas (but refrain from "accepting" them) and we should always strive to find out whether what we are talking about is a matter of fact or a matter of opinion.

Thanks again Dustin (for your inspirational focus),
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/19, 10:59am)

Post 1

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 11:15am

here, here... you hit the nail on the head, ed - there is indeed a crucial difference between opinion and stating fact... but the problem also lies in that, for so many, facts are considered relative, so the force of not accepting is then viewed as intolerance... of course, too, one should not give a damn about how others consider you - still... in which case, this clarity position needs to be made as well... in any case, for myself, is one of the reasons I'm so popular around here - I DON'T RESPECT WRONG OPINIONS, and, as you might imagine, in regards to religion, this becomes a BIG issue...[but, on the plus side, it keeps the Jehovah Witnesses far away from me]...

Post 2

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 4:00pm

Generally I agree with Dustin's brilliant article. My one caveat would be that I do generally respect the opinions of other Objectivists, with whom I of course agree on all fundamental principles and the disagreement is thus just over one or two specific policies.

I also wholeheartedly endorse Ed's comment that not respecting a person's opinions "does not necessary extend to having and showing disdain for the person behind the idea". (quoted because I couldn't have put it any better myself!)

MH

Post 3

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 4:08pm

Generally I agree with Dustin's brilliant article. My one caveat would be that I do generally respect the opinions of other Objectivists, with whom I of course agree on all fundamental principles and the disagreement is thus just over one or two specific policies.

I also wholeheartedly endorse Ed's comment that not respecting a person's opinions "does not necessary extend to having and showing disdain for the person behind the idea". (quoted because I couldn't have put it any better myself!)

I agree with that. As in the article, the person I was talking with is a good friend of mine and has been for almost 8 or so years (and obviously not an Objectivist). I respect the opinions of Objectivists when I think they are wrong (but none so far have said I am a rightful slave to the government)

Post 4

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 9:34am

Dustin, the ideas you've expressed in this article are ideas people need to hear, understand, and accept. People need to understand that respect has to be earned, and that holding an opinion in contempt need not mean holding the man in contempt for holding the opinion.

There's something I say to people who whine that I don't "respect their opinion"; I tell them, "I don't respect your arsehole either. Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody's got one, and most of 'em stink."

Isn't it a matter of justice to grant an opinion only as much respect as it deserves?

Post 5

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 12:24pm

[Daniel Barnes post accidently got deleted from the moderator queue. Here it is is:]

Ed:
>The stances we hold are always and only falsifiable via evidence-based reasoning. Popper failed to integrate the last word of that sentence. By promoting "one side of the falsification coin," a pandora's box ensued - where people felt that anything that wasn't the product of experimental science was "up for grabs" as a viable stance.

Actually, this is entirely incorrect. Popper used falsifiability - the ability to prove a theory wrong - as a way to distinguish *scientific* from non-scientific ideas.

This took two forms: an idea could either 1) logically falsifiable or 2) experimentally falsifiable - or *both*. Once a theory is falsified *either* way, it is no longer viable.

To say that Popper said "anything that isn't experimental is viable" is quite the opposite of what he actually said! Things can certainly be *theoretically* non-viable too. Hence his devastating theoretical debunking of Marx and Freud, for example.

The other side of the "falsification coin" is the "confirmation" side, which leads to Hume's problem, and which Popper's theory quite brilliantly avoids.

- Daniel

Post 6

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 4:38pm

Daniel B.,

I concede the point regarding Popper's view of non-science being "up-for-grabs" or "anything goes."

It is not that which HE SAID - but that which others APPEALING TO FALSIFICATION have said - which I was referring to when I mentioned the "pandora's box" originating from falsificationism's effect on a public searching for a morality.

Daniel, I'm curious, would you agree that "falsificationism" has been misused in this way?

Ed

Post 7

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 5:53pm

*ahem*

DUSTIN ROCKS.

Thank you.

Post 8

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 6:17pm

Ed:
>It is not that which (Popper) SAID - but that which others APPEALING TO FALSIFICATION have said - which I was referring to when I mentioned the "pandora's box" originating from falsificationism's effect on a public searching for a morality.... Daniel, I'm curious, would you agree that "falsificationism" has been misused in this way?

I doubt "falsificationism" is very well known at all amongst the public, and I doubt it has had much of a negative effect even if partly misunderstood (I can't think of an example offhand anyway - maybe you can?) The main problems in modern philosophy are relativism, subjectivism, authoritarianism, and verbalism; falsification is bug-spray to all these tendencies.

The great thing about it as a criteria is that it doesn't open Pandora's Boxes (like Marxism), but *closes* them instead, by revealing their non-scientific status.

Of course, finding falsifications is one thing: the key issue is that one must make a decision to *accept* a falsification when it is presented; even when it is of your most dearly held theory! Because one can always avoid uncomfortable problems by ducking questions and "playing with words", hiding amongst terminological thickets (the Marxists turned this into an art form!). It takes considerable effort to avoid this temptation, and take it on the chin, so to speak! Yet this is what you must do.

So as well as a rational method, falsification also involves a *moral* decision too; perhaps akin to what Objectivists call "intellectual honesty". So with this in mind, I doubt it would have a very bad effect even if the ins and outs of it were not well generally understood.

-Daniel

Post 9

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 1:38am

Ed:
>As I said above, my original words did place the blame on the public (not Popper). In light of this, your responses on this matter now seem rather disingenuous. Would you please address that?

I'm not being "disingenuous" at all. Here's what you said:

Ed originally wrote:
>>>The stances we hold are always and only falsifiable via evidence-based reasoning. Popper failed to integrate the last word of that sentence. By promoting "one side of the falsification coin," a pandora's box ensued - where people felt that anything that wasn't the product of experimental science was "up for grabs" as a viable stance.

Ed, you clearly say above Popper somehow "failed to integrate" reasoning with his falsification theory, and by his "promoting" this theory a "pandora's box" ensued etc.

So Popper, through plugging his failed reasoning, is to blame for the public thinking all kinds of dreadful things. He was "promoting" it after all, right? And it was clear from your following comment, about "anything that wasn't the product of experimental science was viable", that you didn't actually know what what his theory was all about. So I was perfectly correct to say that you didn't.

When I criticised this, in a subsequent post you took it back:

Ed:
>>>I concede the point regarding Popper's view of non-science being "up-for-grabs" or "anything goes."

There. Is that addressed enough for you?

- Daniel

Post 10

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 10:06am

Daniel B.,

Okay, I will chalk it up as a miscommunication. But I would now like your input on an online article linked below
.
Your claim that my knowledge of Popper is deficient (if you accept his conjecture/refutation method) rests on your ability to explain away the major points of this Popper review by Nicholas Dykes.

This is because these critical points - e.g. Kantian premise leading to subjectivism/determinism - refute your claim to an understanding of Popper that is superior to mine.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htm

Ed

Post 11

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 2:55pm

Ed:
>Your�claim that my knowledge of Popper is deficient (if you accept his conjecture/refutation method) rests on your ability to�explain away the major points of this Popper review by Nicholas Dykes.

My claim was actually based on *what you said*: that Popper promoted the idea that "anything that wasn't the product of experimental science was "up for grabs" as a viable stance."

Popper did not promote this idea; therefore your statement was false. After I criticised it, you took it back; so you will forgive me if it didn't look like you knew what you were talking about.

If you want to discuss Dykes' critique, fine too. But it is very long and is a comprehensive attempt to refute Critical Rationalism from top to bottom - so this will be one mother of a thread! I suggest a more appropriate venue for very lengthy discussions about CR will be over at one of the Popper groups I belong to - for example, Tracy Harms' group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/post-Popper/

There are plenty of "anti"-s there, and you and anyone else are welcome to join it. There we can talk about Dykes vs Popper and Critical Rationalism to our hearts content.

- Daniel

Post 12

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 8:11am

I think we do have to be very careful with our terminology here... The use of a word can be misinterpreted and mean something to someone else that we did not intend. For this reason, it's of supreme importance that we use clearly specified terms, to avoid confusion and possible bloodshed... After all, heads really are rolling these days.

When you talk about "not respecting opinions", I think you have to be careful about the use of that word "respect"...

Because you DO respect that the other person has chosen to be civilized enough to actually present their inner thoughts to you, rather than picking up a club and attacking you.

However, that's all that you have to respect. You do not have to respect the logical content and conclusions that form their final opinion. In essence, you can respect their act of sharing their opinion with you, but you do not have to agree with it, which would be an act of validation. And by all means, if their opinion is that 1 + 1 = 3, then you do not have to confirm, agree with, or validate that opinion for them, because it is objectively incorrect. Accepting it would allow it to corrupt the body of truth that we humans rely upon for quality of life.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 7/02, 5:19pm)

Post 13

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 10:42pm

Some might argue that we are not forced to pay taxes. We can give up our american citizenship and move somewhere else at any time.

Doesn't the majority of the American population accept that they pay taxes, even if they do not like paying them? If everyone did not like paying taxes, then why doesn't the population just unanimously stop paying them?

Is there any place we could go, and possibly create our own government? How about we civilize space, since earth is pretty much completely claimed?

Post 14

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 7:53am

Dean,

The U.S. didn't always have income taxes and Social Security taxes. The constitution originally didn't allow it, but there was an amendment in 1914 or 15 that established an income tax. Social Securuty and the associated taxes arose in the 30s.

So, if the freedom loving land you loved, suddenly became a totalitarian state and seized your rights and property, would you give up and move, or would you attempt to change the situation?

Ethan

Post 15

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 8:14am

Ethan Dawe,

It seems like most people I talk to do not think that the services provided by the government could be converted to the private sector. My friend argued that "Police, military, administration service(Secretary of state), UPS, medicare, library, public transportation system, cleaning of public area, schools, and so on and so forth are funded through a government which is funded by taxes we pay. So no tax, no service."

Maybe it is about time we proved them wrong? For example, we could create a non-profit organization which is devoted to providing aide to senior citizens, paid for only by willing volunteers who think it is important to save an extend other's lives.

Do you think that private companies could compete with the government in these services? If so, it seems like we would be doing a great service to ourselves and fellow mankind by creating such companies.

Post 16

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 10:52am

Dean said "It seems like most people I talk to do not think that the services provided by the government could be converted to the private sector. My friend argued that "Police, military, administration service(Secretary of state), UPS, medicare, library, public transportation system, cleaning of public area, schools, and so on and so forth are funded through a government which is funded by taxes we pay. So no tax, no service."

Police, Military, Courts (I think this is administrative) - this is correct from a Minarchist and Objectivist view - they must be govt. funded in some fashion through fees or taxation.

UPS is a private company :) - you answered your own question! However, I assume you meant the USPS, but in any case it is very clear to any person mail can and is delivered by private carriers already, the USPS has a monopoly granted by the govt. to handle all 1st class mail, however. This should be eliminated.

Medicare? - It is called Insurance, we have that. This is mandatory insurance that is funded by legalized theft.

Library? - I think you can get books at amazon.com? You have libraries available at Universities, and no reason a fee-based library can't be created. It should not be funded by the public.

Schools, Public Transportation? - These can and are done better and cheaper by private means. Anyone should be allowed to buy a van and sell transport at any price whatsoever - instead of state-granted monopolies (taxis) and money-losing public transport systems (paid by taxpayers and by riders). Schools should be private, you have 8,000 ways to educate - yourself, the internet, small groups in communities, wow think of how much better and varied it could be! There are whole reams of articles here and linked from here about all of this. Read up!

Post 17

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 11:00am

Hi Dean,

Of course the privage sector could do the majority of these things better. The bottom line is, if its a service that people want, they'll be willing to pay for it. If they're willing to pay for it, then you can make a profit at it. If the goal is profit, a private compnay will find a way to do the work in the most effiicnet means possible, that way profit will be maximised. The government isn't out to earn money, and it pays for its services through the forced taking of taxes. It must then waste millions of dollars administrating and overseeing the extortion and dispersion of the funds. In other words: waste waste waste. A lot of these services are available from private companies, though many aren't. You could certainly try to start companies to compete with the government, but you'll be subject to governemnt regulation in many areas. You can still make a profit, but you will find that the taxes levied on business and cost of meeting regulation will make it a challenge.

Ethan

Post 18

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 11:15am

Kurt: Good point, most of what I claimed already had private aspects.

Ethan: Thanks for your comment. So there are more problems with the government other than taxes that we should change. Lets get to it! Is there any place here at solo where we can identify problems, and then plan how we will solve them?

Post 19

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 12:32pm