Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Neuromarketing and choice

    Statistics will generally only say that there is a reliable difference between two or more groups such that they are probably part of different populations. We could infer that the particular population would follow a pattern without saying why or how they follow the pattern. Inferential statistics (which is the main way to analyze data in psychology) cannot say that 70% of a population will do the predictable results, the whole point of inferential stats is to compare, not to predict. DavidOdden gave an excellent post, so mainly I'm adding that this guy in question probably doesn't understand how psychological science works even if he has citations.
  2. Yes, but the trend is upwards... And in this case, pharmaceuticals aren't inherently dangerous anyway, we're not talking about relying on healing crystals or heroin. I think most people are sympathetic to "there were no other options" for the drugs that turn out dangerous.
  3. I don't see why people would die off anyway.
  4. I mean that it is a reason. We would expect people not to "die off" under capitalism and if people are allowed to use riskier drugs. Riskier, as in still under examination by its developers, not that these drugs are less likely to work. The larger trend would be that people live longer and that this will further help research. If the trend were that people died sooner or at a faster rate, then this would make us question that capitalism is as good as we say it is. Capitalism is good due to its freedom, and that freedom produces good effects.
  5. But it isn't total freedom, only an exception for a specific circumstance. All that needs to be done is persuade legislators that these people are willing and need to take a risk in order to live at all. I don't think this is hard to do, insofar as the FDA already allows some drugs to be offered to specific populations before approval. I don't get what you're saying though - why do you bring up drugs ranging from useless to harmful? What useless drugs? The whole point, for pro-capitalist people like us, is that critically ill people will be better off and demonstrably so if they judge their own medical needs. There will be improvements. If people start "dying off", that's reason to say capitalism fails for the pharmaceutical industry.
  6. Why? EDIT: I doubt it'll get -attention- so it'll die, but it's not the same as outright rejection or a new regulation.
  7. Why freak out now? It didn't get rejected.
  8. What do you have in mind when you say innate idea?
  9. Universals

    This all sounds fine - but you made no argument as to why the universal itself is something that exists apart from your recognition. So far I see you calling it a predicate, but this is rather empty when you are describing it all within the context of language and logical structure. I want to know what "to exist identically" means. Also, in what manner are particulars connected by universals? This is my main disagreement. The notion of connecting is rather vague. I was busy with school so here is more. A lot of classwork. The questions below are not rhetorical. I agree with Peikoff that the dichotomy is no good. I don't fall into that corner since I don't buy into the dicotomy. An identification is an act of defining, but this isn't to say it "only" consists of that definition. There is always some referent, and these referents ought to be real, as in not a result of a mental activity. In other words, I am not trying to take any side of the dichotomy. There are things that hold universally. The issue is in what manner. I mean, is it separable from a particular? If it isn't, how can two particulars hold the same universal? After all, you seem to mean that the universal is the same one, not just a sharing of identical characteristics (identical being the same range of values). The only answer I see is to call universals epistemic. The same mental entity "red" refers to anything that falls in the red range. The particulars don't share the -same- redness even if they have the same value. When I say I have the same shirt as you, I don't mean -that- shirt. That's not tautological - I'm still grounding it in reality. There's a metaphysical grounding if I am rational about the whole process. The thing left that's universal is that the range of values is definite. The only time you alter it is if you notice it fails to unite the particulars. Also, learning more is no issue. The point of an essential is that you explore what things with a certain trait will do.
  10. Universals

    I already said I'm not saying universals don't exist. I know the usage here is non-standard (i.e. Rand's meaning), but you certainly can see what I mean. I keep going to the binding part, because it's the only way I can explain why I don't reject universals. If 1) I point to the world, 2) bind particulars, and 3) the particulars ALL share some feature, this is a universal. The only non-standard part seems to be that I think 2 is epistemic, but that doesn't hurt it. If you don't get what I mean, just ask. Or just expand on how universals work (it might end up that there's a terminological difference but not one of meaning). Make a positive case so I can analyze an alternative.
  11. Universals

    Why can't they be? I mean, the word seems fine, if it really is fine to say universals bind particulars.
  12. Universals

    Why people disagree varies a lot, and for many possible reasons. One reason might be lying, another might be lack of knowledge, another might be that people can't find out the truth. Intrinsicism might refer to an ethical theory, in which case that would mean something like there is intrinsic goodness in some things without reference to an individual. Rand didn't support this at all. But it also might refer to theories where intrinsic properties exist. Rand didn't show that she rejected this idea, I don't see a reason to say she rejected all intrinsic theories.
  13. Universals

    Well, I just mean it's a bad argument, it doesn't show anything about the nature of the disagreement.
  14. Universals

    I didn't say universals don't exist. I said universals represent facts, implying also that facts are about the world. As representations, they are at most epistemic - representations are of the mind. It's a misunderstanding of my words to say I think universals don't exist. I'm fine saying that there are facts about things, and that things can exist identically in terms of value ranges. I don't want to call this a universal, because I'd say universals imply a binding that makes particulars cohere together. If this idea is wrong, I'd like to see how. If that's all you mean, this would be epistemic, no? That's all I'm really saying, and that metaphysical is not clear to convey what you mean. This is not a good argument. Human error does not tell us that intrinsic things don't exist.
  15. Universals

    This post, SK. But posts after it clarify it. I was only arguing about if "universal" makes sense metaphysically speaking (exist without the presence of a mind), not if universals represent facts of the matter (these universals exist). EDIT: isn't a universal something that binds particulars together?
  16. Universals

    I said there is a fact of the matter and said how...
  17. Universals

    Yeah, but I don't see why I'm not justified. I did provide an account of how my notion of invariant facts for ALL existing members in the set fails to refer to a fact of the matter. I didn't like calling it a metaphysical universal.
  18. Universals

    I don't know how else to answer this, I tried as best I could. I don't see why, based on my explanation, that the best I can do is describe the set. Why can't I infer what newly-added set members will do? After all, if I use invariant facts, this is a connection to how reality is. As long as we reason out from essentials, we are already implying the members will behave a certain way and anything with the same essential. Give me am example of how what I'm saying would make it impossible to infer new information correctly. " Do you understand this distinction here at least? I've been trying to describe these two fundamentally different ideas of concepts/universals, and how very different they are philosophically. " I don't know. Would you explain here what you mean by natural class? Or, a link to an article that explains what you mean? I know what it means, but your specific theory might be more nuanced.
  19. Universals

    Because by definition the set is only things that meet the standard already selected. There is nothing to miss. There is nothing to leave out. Say I'm working with the concept "bird", and set the essential as "has wings". By definition, this will include all winged things. If you said "what about that red thing with wings, you forgot that", I'd say "so we add it, we don't need to think harder than that". Now, if you intend to refer to animals with wings, and not mechanical things with wings (if the red thing is a plane), that means the set fails to refer to what you wanted to reference. The problem isn't with the set missing something, it's that it has no cognitive role for thinking about animals. As I said before, our disagreement is whether it's right to -begin- with a set of concretes, or to -begin- with the category. I have no issue saying that intrinsic properties exist. I don't think Rand does either. My problem with the idea that particulars are naturally bound together without your mental intervention. Consider that a rock is bound together as a concrete entity. But to form the concept rock is different. The "set of all rocks" are bound together insofar as you performed a mental operation to do this. How do you propose that all rocks are bound together into a universal set? Why should I think they are bound, and metaphysically given as bound? If this is a belief in metaphysical universals, I really don't think this is accurate to say. It doesn't fit what I understand metaphysical means. I'm saying the timeless thing is manmade. The timeless thing is made of metaphysically given facts for the most basic concepts. All we need to do is define the starting set properly.
  20. Only if you stick to narrow political analysis. It isn't good for a country's interests that another country is able to exert its influence. I'm not saying that the hackers in question are responsible for the election - but influence doesn't need to be heavy for it to be bad. It isn't -good- that another country has, to some degree, attempted influence. In other words, using foreign power to rid the US of bad leaders runs the risk of allowing that foreign power's influence to grow. You do not appear to offer any idea how this is not a huge worry, the long-term consequences are worse than the short term benefits. You seem to overlook that the US doing this has harmed many other countries, but that somehow, Russia/Putin would not do the same. No, you forgot to take into account how much more military power the US had, the time to build up that power, and all the other global reach the US built in a century. Russia is not as big, and prior to Putin, it was rather pathetic. Russia didn't have the power to do anything, let alone do damage like the US has done with interventionism. It appears to me you don't want to quell the threat of Russian imperialism. I would rather we recognize the trend now, and not ignore that Russia has imperialist intentions overall. Right or wrong, Crimea does compare, as does Georgia. No, it's not as huge as Iraq, but the manner in which these occurred are worrisome. Right, so Trump was the best option. He's malleable and takes whatever position suits him upon any whim he wishes. Thus, exerting -some- influence for Trump was wise. and... Musk 2020! My initial thought is some sort of economic agreement, but I'm not sure.
  21. It's odd to me that you would spin it as some sort of kind act or at least beneficial. Indeed, the consequences help your view (FYI, I only thought Hillary was marginally better, and I think Trump is a heartless, warmongering, lying pig too). But we don't want to measure benefit with a short-term evaluation of consequence. Russia is a quite a shady entity, not to mention that there is no clear-cut way for us to know what the long-term strategy is. In this case, I bet it was independent of the Russian Federation, but Putin probably knew what was happening and did nothing about it. The politics here are likely aimed at allowing Russia to gain some control of their interests from easily manipulating Trump on the world stage. It's wiggle room for questionable actions elsewhere in the world. You already identified that the US is weak on the world stage - and ideally here, Russia is keeping it that way. The intention I think is to acquire an ally to control. This is a low bar. The US has been at it for a century. Putin's Russia has been at it for 18 years. I don't disagree with your points a lot. Put it into perspective. Remember the time scale. I'm not saying Russia is worse or as bad, but it isn't good at all. It annoys me when you talk to me as if I'm a liberal. I do not condemn -Russians- at all. I don't treat Russia as USSR 2.0. I think a lot of American politicians underestimate how the Russian government can be held in check with proper political savvy. We'd be in danger if no one took some fancy moves to get what we want out of Russia. Unfortunately... that's what's happening today - no action.
  22. There does, the main dispute is if it was state sponsored. You speak of how the US harms its reputation through imperialism, praise Russia (Putin) for its imperialism, then spin the US in terms of capitalism as "more pure than anywhere in the west" despite how you are stating that the US is an imperialist state. This is not making sense. Criticism of the US is fine, but you're so gentle about Russia doing the same. Sure, Russia/Putin does well for itself. Political savvy is good. But my praise ends there.
  23. Then please make a contribution. SK literally asked and your response is to troll. Your response is trivial, "if you knew what we knew, you'd know". Well, that's the point of a forum, and you know that. To see what others know. Don't discourage questions.
  24. Universals

    But "approximation" is a subjective standard, and does not capture what Rand means by similarity. It is based on definitive value ranges. Your idea here is more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabilism
  25. Not really, no. Marauders are still bad, though. It's only war in the sense of a violent campaign, but not intended as an attack on a nation/Empire/kingdom. "Death to America" and blowing up a national symbol wouldn't be the same as a Mexican cartel attacking some US border town, or pirates kidnapping Roman aristocracy.