Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

rei ichi

Regulars
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rei ichi

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Massachusetts
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    College Student

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Astronomy, Chemical Engineering, Corporate Law, Debate, Extraterrestrial Geology/Climatology, Microbiology, Music, Objectivism, Technology.
  1. I recently asked myself a (short series of related) question(s): (Q): Hank Rearden invented, manufactured, and sold steel. Of the vocations that Hank Rearden could have potentially entertained - industrial or otherwise - why did he find the steel industry so satisfying? Similarly, Ayn Rand apparently decided at a very young age that she wanted to write for a living. Was this decision to write - an important value judgement that would affect the course of her life - an arbitrary one? Was it tantamount to allowing a feeling to 'make' an important decision, as opposed to feelings supplementing
  2. I find, for the first time in my life, that the question is difficult for me to answer. This, what was previously one of the simplest questions that I could have been asked. Soon after I began to really integrate reason into my life on the fundamental level that studying Objectivist philosophy requires, which is only recently, my artistic interests started to change. Where I was previously stuck in a sort of dark little 'intellectual oubliette,' created by the manner in which my personal brand of Logical Positivism totally amputated metaphysics and ethics, and subsequently any real sense of pu
  3. Of course I've read Popper's Logik der Forschung. Being a Falsificationist, however, no more makes one a "Popperian" than being an Objectivist makes one a Randroid, or being a fan of modern highways and their gently curving off-ramps makes one an Adolf Hitlerite. What you're doing amounts to nothing better than artificially broadening Falsification into "Popperianism" in order to launch offal at the simple concept from outside of its bounds. And now, instead of attempting to defend your indefensable comments, you instead evade the issue entirely. So then, in further response to your matrix-lik
  4. How, exactly, does Falsifiability do any harm to the "conduct of scientific research?" I don't know about "Popperianism" (we're only talking about Falsifiability here - it isn't some cult of personality), but Falsifiability is not anywhere close to Nihilism. Regarding it as such would be a gross and irresponsible misnomer, one which illogically extends well beyond the contemporary scientific function of Falsifiability. As applied to your post, it also serves as a straw man and is therefore doubly fallacious. No, no, and again no. Even a true theory can quite plainly be Fals
  5. What is the official policy on graphics within the signature line (specifically, user-created signature images displayed by way of linking)? I didn't notice anything about it in the Forum Rules, but I assume that they would be either disallowed or regulated given the nature of the other rules. Most well-run boards seem to prohibit them altogether or have a specific set of criteria - pixel maximums and minimums (universally fixed dimensions), filesize maximums, file type restrictions (generally animated signatures do not go over well), and so on. I apologise for being redundant if this has
  6. Not really. Here is an excerpt from the wiki link that I posted earlier: "A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as "in denial" about his sexual orientation may be viewed as confirming he is homosexual simply by denying that he is; and if he has sex with women, he may be accused of trying to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate his heterosexuality to his analyst. This is an example of what Popper called a "closed circle". The proposition that the patient is homosexual is not falsifiable." You can replace the word "possible" wit
  7. One does not mean "prove or disprove" - one only means "disprove," hence "Falsifiability". As for online references, try this. At a glance, it is far more complete.
  8. I agree - not that I have ever posited a reconciliation of Nihilism and Objectivism in the first place. As I mentioned in my very first post, Nihilism is something that I've recently discarded. No. I said nothing about any necessary falsehood. "All scientific knowledge" being rendered false does not follow from the falsifiability of scientific theory. Falsifiability is a potential. Scientific theory is perpetually incomplete. A theory that is unfalsifiable can never be disproved or decisively challenged; it is posited such that it is intrinsically immune to reproach or
  9. In order for .999... to equal anything other than one, there would have to be a number - even an infinitely small number - between .999... and one. And yet, were we to start at the number one and move backwards towards .999..., we would immediately find there to be no number between the two - which means that they are the same number. And besides that: IF 1/9 = .111... 8/9 = .888... AND IF .111... + .888... = .999... AND ALSO 1/9 + 8/9 = 9/9 = 1. THEN .999... = 1. This series of repeating decimals is just a semantic limitation of decimal notation, is it not?
  10. Thanks. As I said, it is a fledgling interest; of Rand, I've only yet read Atlas Shrugged.
  11. An unfalsifiable theory. It could be any number of things in addition to that - it just isn't scientific. To use a common example, a Falsificationist might argue that Psychoanalysis is an ideology, as opposed to a scientific theory, because it cannot be falsified. You could probably regard Falsifiability a principle of exclusion in that it excludes theories from science, but does not subsequently categorize those theories further. The purpose is to distinguish between science and pseudoscience that potentially retards the scientific method by erroneously claiming to be science. Personally, my
  12. (Note: This was split from this thread (link) in the Introductions sub-forum - softwareNerd). Sure. A Falsificationist is simply an individual who subscribes to the general principle of Falsification, which, broadly, states that any theory intrinsically impossible to be found false can not be considered a scientific theory. It is a mainstay of contemporary Western scientific thought. What I mean is some kind of rational philosophical basis that I might appeal to whenever I must make socially significant decisions, such as voting one way or the other during an election. Do I work t
  13. Hello. I don't particularly enjoy going on about myself, so forgive me if the following comes off a bit impassionate or sparse. I'm a 23 year old college student, living in the United States. After five years of non-academic, "real world" living, I was able to finally extract myself from the cold dregs of an especially bitter, longstanding nihilism - first manifesting in excess of eleven years ago (which, from my nascent perspective, is an eternity). I am, and have always been, an unmitigated Agnostic and Logical Positivist/Falsificationist. Still, I seek a rational social platform of
×
×
  • Create New...