1 pointFour Things Several years ago, I decided that each Friday, I'd take a break from the negativity of the news cycle and make a list of four things I find interesting or enjoyable. I still do that most weeks. But recently, I started ending each day (or starting the next morning) by making a list of three wins, big or small, from the day. Here are four of those from the past month, excluding (a) the lack of a visit from Hurricane Dorian, (b) my good time hustling art with my son, and (c) my discovery of a way to finally get the garage clear of moving boxes... 1. On the anniversary of my father's death, I remembered, "I was very lucky to have Pops as a dad." Image by Jan Kolar, via Unsplash, license. 2. While we were visiting with my brother in another part of Florida, I took a look at the house with a Nest camera, and heard an Echo/Alexa alarm going off. We used to use the Nest cameras as child monitors and I remembered that it's possible to speak into the phone app and be heard through a small speaker built into the phone. So I tried to silence the alarm by saying, "Alexa, stop!" It didn't work, probably because the sound quality from the Nest camera isn't great and it was sitting across the living room from the Echo. It was fun to try, though. 3. For ages, I have had a chronic problem completing my weekly review, during which I had scheduled looking at all my project tracking files. So I set aside an entire Friday to accomplish this. If by "fail," you mean I still didn't make it through them all, I failed. But I did get through quite a few, and more important, I saw a better way to do this part of the weekly review: Just do a few each week and note where I left off. Pick up there the next week and repeat. Now, I know I'll at least look at everything from time to time, and that I won't fail to do this entirely for so long ever again. 4. We took the kids to Disney last weekend. At one point, while standing in line, I heard my six-year-old son's voice. He was frustrated and upset about something. That something was that he'd managed to trap his arm between the metal frame of a movie poster and a guard rail. I tried moving his arm vertically, in case he'd inserted it through a slightly wider part of the gap, then tried to pull out from a narrow part. No dice. So quickly I am still amazed, I realized that (a) I needed to lubricate his arm, and (b) that water is a lubricant. "Stop panicking," I said to my son. "Do you have some water," I asked my wife. Using the bottle she produced from the bowels of her backpack, I moistened his arm and immediately got it out, earning applause from a foreign tourist behind us. -- CAV P.S.: It was fun reviewing my wins for the month. This has been a part of my day I look forward to, and I highly recommend this practice. Link to Original
1 pointYes, that was a kind of typo. Peikoff's "inductive proof of causality" is the subject under discussion. Yes, and by the way proof is also a method of integration because what is proved is related to other knowledge. Yes, the fact that you can contemplate the axioms and relate them to each other is a form of integration even though Peikoff would deny there is proof or derivation or deduction happening. The order of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness has methodological (epistemological) significance in order to affirm Primacy of Existence and deny Primacy of Consciousness, but each is a mentally abstracted facet of existence which exhibits all three simultaneously. Causality merely appears to come "after" Identity in that it is easier to understand or imagine some object as static and then add the dynamics but in reality everything that exists is always acting (even if slowly). Understanding Identity as static omits the greater part of an existent's Identity, how it acts.
1 pointSorry, it should say something like it was "my way to say that your reasoning has poor foundations". Then I think this is the source of the disagreement. If you think that what we are discussing does not apply to science, then you are necessarily saying that whatever standard and thresholds you have for deciding when it is appropriate to apply force, is that these standards and thresholds don't have to do with figuring out what we need to attain certainty. I'm sure there are some epistemic standards you care about, but it sounds like you don't know why epistemic standards need to come in when we are applying force. I'm not saying that we are talking about scientific method, but I am talking about investigation. The thing that is the same here is applying tests one at a time in a meticulous manner, and only when it is reasonable, to go onto an even more in-depth test. Context only affects how conservative we want to be. Given that individual rights are involved, we would want to be extremely conservative about the steps we take. Individual rights are a good principle for codifying just how conservative we should be. More specifically, 4A when it comes to deciding who is worth searching. I'd suggest reviewing 2046's posts. It's not the same argument, but those posts at least use similar language that easily applies to what I mean by being conservative with the steps we take. Dismissed it because I didn't understand it. I prefer warrants and probable cause because I think anything more would be a standard of infallibility. Yes. I mean, as set up, we are relying on what the clerk says they remember. It's too weak of a justification and unreliable. Even if you can make a good legal case, at the very least, it's better than saying something like "let's check all the safe-deposit boxes". Your search should only be proportional to the evidence you have. It would be an active search, so it should require a warrant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0F6v1_iy4