RadCap

If you took offense at my use of the term 'hijack' instead of morph, I apologize. I was not attempting to 'berate' anyone. I was simply trying to make a polite request. To prevent my question from being lost in posts which have numerous similar threads elsewhere, I made a plea to post further such comments in those other threads or new threads. Now I am QUITE aware that topics do "morph from their original subject into something that others really want to talk about". It was specifically because of this awareness that I made my last post - to try to prevent such "morphing" and instead steer tangential conversation to other topics. As the person who started the thread - who sought the answer to a question which was being overwhelmed by other discussions - I do not think that is an unreasonable request. -- I am sorry my first post was not as "clear and explicit" as it could have been. I was not remembering the other qm, etc related contradictions. You corrected this oversight on my part by answering my question with examples of other qm etc contradictions. Based on this correction, I tried to reform the question more clearly by indicating I was looking for something which excluded those and "all the other related physics 'weirdness'." In the context of my knowledge, I believed this would explicitly remove physics from the table. This was a second error on my part (though of a different form). You brought up another example, also from physics, which was outside my experience. The point of the question is that I am mostly ignorant when it comes to contradictions accepted in the physical sciences, outside the realm of special relativity, qm and the like (otherwise I would have no need to ask the question). Due to this fact, it is difficult for me to be perfectly clear and explicit when asking questions. However I tried the best I could with my third post to be VERY clear and explicit, by providing much more exact paramaters: "Something less abstract and more concrete. Something which lends itself to physical depiction or grasp - and which might affect or be involved in every day life." And I even tried to provide some alternative fields of physical science besides physics, to indicate (but not limit - thus the 'etc') the types of fields which were more germane to the intent of my question. In other words, I was TRYING to be as specific as the context of my knowledge would allow. I don't know what I could do more than that (assistance, even in that regard - in helping focus the question - would have been appreciated). Thus I am most sorry to hear that, after two errors on my part, you considered my questioning to be a spiraling rabbit hole which would waste your time.

Nuts - I was hoping this topic would not shift from my question to a discussion of something I didnt want to focus on at all. Please - there are many topics already devoted to the individual topics being discussed. And it is easy to bring up further questions in new threads if one so desires. As such, could we refrain from 'hijacking' my topic and changing it to something entirely different? -- As an aside, given the silence on examples of contradictions outside the realm of physics, should I take it that there are no blatant examples of other sciences accepting contradictions?

Actually, the point is that jrshep had NO evaluation of my post at all - at least not a RATIONAL one. He made a personal attack. Are you saying you agree with engaging in personal attacks instead of addressing the substance of a question? That is a logical fallacy. Ah - so what you are saying is that IF you bothered to read the full argument, you might know that Eddie was engaged in evasions. However since you did NOT bother to find out the full context of his remarks, then when someone points out that Eddie is engaging in massive evasions (which doesnt even require reading more than a couple of the last pages to determine), you feel this does NOT warrant the reading of that context and a reappraisal of Eddie's behavior on YOUR part. Instead it justifies a personal attack against the individual pointing OUT that he is engaging in massive evasions. It justifies a personal attack against the individual pointing out that ignoring his evasion is a sanction of it. That is NOT a rational approach to a discussion. Why not point it out - as I did - and let everyone be aware that Eddie is engaged in evasion? THAT way people do not waste their time treating him as if he were engaged in a rational discussion. And IF they doubt the asssertion, they can certainly check it for themselves. Or are you saying that ignorance is preferable condition? Given that you have EXPLICITLY stated that you PURPOSEFULLY ignore context, that appears to be your argument here. You mean I assumed Betsy had bothered to read the context of Eddie's conversation? I would not insult Betsy by assuming anything else. Since the claim has been made, then it is a VERY simple matter for you to see his evasions. READ HIS POSTS. In other words, do not remain PURPOSEFULLY ignorant of the context of the argument by REFUSING to read his previous posts. WILLFUL ignorance is not a justification for irrational behavior. And it certainly is not a justification to attack the person pointing out the evasion and the consequent sanction OF that evasion. THAT is called "shooting the messenger" and is a major logical fallacy. -- As to jrsheps response - I shall simply point out that he has persisted in his evasion of the subject and engaged now instead in THREE ad hom attack posts in a row (which reveals at least ONE reason why jrshep sanctions Eddie's evasions). Hopefully the admins (and everyone else here) will give this sort of behavior the response it deserves.

Stephen Thanks for the reply. But I was really hoping for some example that wasn't too bound to the field of physics. Something pertaining to geology, or meteorology, or chemistry, etc. Something less abstract and more concrete. Something which lends itself to physical depiction or grasp - and which might affect or be involved in every day life.

This is a major spoiler about the central villain of the movie. Do NOT follow this link unless you don't mind spoiling a very cool surprise: http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14590,00.html What this indicates is where technology is going in film. I am now more curious to see the film than I was before (and I was already very eager), in order to see how well they pull it off. Again, beware in this is a major spoiler. Dont say I didnt warn you.

Shhh! Seriously, plot is already there. Just wanted to see if anyone knew of any blatant contradictions. Would be nice to progress from small ones up to the big one.

I quoted the wrong post. The post addressed your ad hom of a response. Of course I know you realized that, and simply took the error as another opportunity to engage in further personal attacks. Your lack of intellectual content and your insistence in engaging only in personal invective properly disqualify you from posting. I advise you to refrain from such behavior in the future. Take notice, since you have persisted in that improper behavior, it has now been reported to admin.

You evade the assertion that Eddie is engaged in evasions. You evade the assertion that, after all Eddie's evasions, continuing to engage him as if he has not engaged in all these evasions is a sanction of those evasions. And you evade answering the question. Instead of addressing this content of my post, what do you do? You engage in a blatant personal attack. Such behavior is not tolerated on this forum. If you cannot address the content of a post rationally, do not address it at all. Even though I disagree with Betsy's reason for continuing the conversation with Eddie, at least she answered the question rationally. And with that answer, she indicated that she recognizes Eddie's continued evasions - his irrationality - and is not in fact sanctioning those evasions. In other words she is not treating him as rational or pretending that he is acting logically. She is implicitly stating that no one can argue rationally with such an individual as Eddie. Instead, she is using him as a means to provide intellectual ammunition to OTHERS here who may face these same arguments elsewhere and not know how to rectify the contradictions for themselves. As such, I can respect and understand the logic of her actions. They are rational. I cannot say the same for your response.

I was hoping for examples (if they exist) that are outside the realm of quantum mechanics, special relativity, and all the other related physics 'weirdness'.

Why is anyone continuing to sanction Eddie and his blatant evasions?

In the physical sciences, besides the physics-related acceptance of light as a contradiction - as both a particle and a wave (and its associated contradictions) - are there any other concepts which are blatant or close to blatant contradictions which are also accepted (either mainstream or even somewhat fringe)?

grasped but not identified

http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/hero/large.html I saw this trailer a few months back. I notice they are now advertising it on TV, so I thought I would comment. I am incredibly impressed by the apparent production values and the outstandingly vivid style of this film. It looks amazingly gorgeous. In fact, some of the shots simply send shivers down my spine they are so beautiful to look at. If the film is anything like the trailer, it should be spectacular. Has anyone else seen it yet?

I haven't had the time to post much lately, because of events in RL. However, I thought I'd share the bit of web work Ive done for the Rational Man project. http://www.rationalman.net/index.html

Hello everyone I have a question regarding the slavery VS freedom issue. Would it be wise to hand people's lives entirely to themselves since those lives will revolve around their "Private interest."? In other words, would it not be better to keep at least *some* slavery, in order that we may be certain men will not be devoted just to their 'private interests' but also to whatever we identify as 'public interests' as well?

I would like to thank all three of you for your suggestions. Any ideas are greatly appreciated at this point. Stephen - the idea of a business proposal is obviously a good one. But my problem comes back to "Who". If I completed such a business proposal in the alloted time, I would still not know who to present it to (nor really how in my given physical condition). If you have additional suggestions along these lines, perhaps you could relay them privately, since I dont really want to discuss the details of my illness any more publically. Michelangelo - yes. Finding out more information from them would be great. Even if the mom is unable to help, she may have some suggestions on who I could contact. So I would appreciate that, thank you. Betsy - I responded to your email already. Thank you. As to the book recommendation, I will definitely look into it. I also saw a couple other interesting books on the site as well. So, again thank you.

Hi all, I have mentioned in passing on a couple occasions that I am fighting both a medical, and a related legal, battle. Today I received some bad news in regard to them, which affects me financially in an crushing way. So I need some advice if anyone might have some. In relation to the Rational Man concept/series of illustrated books I wish to pursue, does anyone have contact with publishers who might be willing to produce such a series? While this is still very much in its rough stages, and so is likely premature to approach anyone, I am pretty desperate financially now. Without going into medical details, I currently have a problem doing pretty much any regular form of work. And with this new news, I now find myself without any income. If I cannot find some source of income - like an advance on the series, or something - I will quite literally find myself on the street within the next couple months. As such, while I don't like to have to make any of this public, I am at my wits end on how to resolve this situation. Any suggestions you might have would be greatly apppreciated. Thank you RadCap

When a person rejects logic - and the burden of proof is a fundamental principle of logic - then there is no means to RATIONALLY speak with him. The only thing you can do is STOP TALKING.

I have not yet read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been dealt with: "And, that you could say of something, "I'm even more certain of it now than I was before". This would suggest that certainty is not necessarily a "singularity" and could allow for a continuum." I believe you are stating that the accumulation of evidence or data to support a conclusion can accrue up to and BEYOND the point of where you are certain of that conclusion. In other words, more and more evidence can accumulate with also proves your conclusion. As such, as MORE evidence accrues, you are MORE certain. If that is the case, I have to disagree. I am certain of the axiom identity, on the basis that I perceive existents. Through perception and experience, I am almost constantly provided with new existents. Am I MORE sure - more certain - of identity than I was before? No. I am JUST AS certain of it when I determined it was true - that it was real - as I am now. Additional existents do not change that truth - they do not make it MORE knowledge than it was before. Once I am CERTAIN, the ONLY thing that NEW evidence can do to CHANGE that state of knowledge is provide some CONTRADICTION to it. Otherwise the epistemological state of that knowledge remains constant. It is something akin to a fader light switch. The OFF position is the impossible. The ON position is full intensity - certainty. Between the two you are in the province of the uncertain - the light of knowledge released from the bulb is much dimmer, but gets increasingly brighter as you slide closert to certainty (from possible, to probable, etc with whatever other catagories in between). Once you have reached the point of certainty, the light of knowledge from that bulb is as bright as it will get. It does not get any brighter.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5287945/ This supposedly serious article denigrates the remarkable achievement of man space through redefinition by NON essentials. It is a sneer piece which pretends to be benevolent and *somewhat* cheering of the astronautic achievements. According to it, man has NEVER 'really' gone into space at all. Note that the writer is from SETI. That explains alot.

"I accept other axioms because they are fundamentally self-evident, such as existence, consciousness,..." Actually you contradict this statement later in the same post. You say: ""Himself” not being just the material being, but some mystical entity that injects a cause into the real world, and yet nothing caused the injection." You have identified consciousness here as a non-material thing, which is not part of the "real" (read MATERIAL) world. You reject consciousness on the basis that it is mystical and thus could not 'affect' any material element in existence. So much for you being conscious, or you accepting consciousness as self-evident. -- "“I am not sure how much you even agree with yourself.” I am." The above contradiction indicates otherwise. -- Not to mention that the term ACCEPT means to CHOOSE. Thus, by using it, you invalidate any argument AGAINST volition - against choosing - via contradiction. In other words, by merely uttering the phrase "I do not accept volition" you affirm it completely. You say "I am FREE to CHOOSE to accept this idea or reject it. And I CHOOSE to reject it." So thank you for agreeing with us.

But tom - if you keep the law of identity and causality, how are you going to allow contradiction? And without contradictory conclusions, where would physics be today?

Stephen, Not only that, but the mathematical axioms are ultimately expressions of the law of identity, are they not? In other words, while they are axiomatic in the particular field, because the field is derived from the principles of philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology), so too the mathematical axioms are ultimately derived from the philosophic axioms (mostly identity). In other words, they are not arbitrary at all.

"Unwarranted hostility" LOL. My responses were not hostile, and they were most certainly warranted by what can only be ddescribed as purposeful evasion of arguments. The number of skins to the onion simply became too many to refute. Anyway - good bye

Ok - this needs to stop. W essentially is denying EVERYTHING - including the validity of the senses, the distinction between existence and non-existence (identified as a tautology by him), etc. There is NO way he will learn otherwise here. He simply has TOO much to learn before he can even reach the part of philosophy he seeks to understand W - If you are ACTUALLY interested in understanding the Objectivism, you need to read Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. It explains the both the metaphysical and the epistemological fundamentals which will provide you the basis to understand the questiosn you are asking and refute the fallacoes you are engaging in. A forum is not a school. It cannot undo all the falsehoods you have learned and accepted. I suggest you read it because you CANNOT get your answers here. The format of a forum is simply not equiped to teach you what you need to learn. An essay cannot teach you what you need to learn. An entire article cannot teach you. BTW _ I have to say that your claim you are not a student of philosophy is dubious, to put it mildly. You know far to much about the subject, far too many specifically philosophic terms, and far too many very specific philosophic arguments and objections to never have studied the subject before. Given your responses - especially the most recent ones, it appears you are a major troll.