damZway
-
Posts
144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by damZway
-
-
-
Auction ends tonight.
-
-
One day left. I'll be listing another item later this week.
-
-
-
Peikoff's Philosophy of Education is only $65 now.
Lisa VanDamme's Ibsen the Iconoclast is only $31.48 now.
Wonder how the pricing will be affected once the items go downloadable?
I sent them an e-mail this morning asking about future pricing once the switch is complete.
No response as yet.
-
Why do I have to choose one or the other? This is a Morton's Fork.
Your approach here consists of quoting the formulations of others,
then expecting the reader to be convinced of an argument that you
can't quite articulate. This amounts to "Mentzer sucks! And, um -- my
current guru, Haycock, will explain the 'how and why' in this quote."
If this is true, you don't really know it yourself; iow, there's not much
you in your argument. So, I suspect that your essay is delayed
by more than time constraints.
Trying to fit everything into your analogy template might prove problematic
in light of the inherent rationalism required for such an approach.
But take as much time as you need. I just hope that you don't jump
to another training protocol in the meantime; you might have to change
the name of your essay to "Haycock: the Nathaniel and Barbara Branden
of Weight-training." -- then post some quotes from James Valliant, and
Greg Glassman of CrossFit -- to tell us all why.
"You have to choose b/w induction (science) & rationalism (pseudo-science) - “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”"
I don't accept your premise that Haycock represents "induction (science)". So, the Morton's Fork remains.
"Ever hear of the idiom "reinventing the wheel?" If it's been said better before, why say it again?"
Interesting. Your defense of parroting others with no genuine input from yourself begins with more parroting?
No, you don't have to reinvent the wheel -- but you do need to understand how a wheel works.
"Trying to evade all the inductive science against HIT might prove problematic in light of the inherent dishonesty required for such an approach."
And continues with even more parroting -- of me?
"The essay was originally my way of giving back to the Objectivist community, but given the evasive mentality encountered in this thread, I'm beginning to doubt its value."
I think we all had our doubts regarding its value -- and more doubts that an essay containing an original formulation from you was forthcoming.
Like any other bad poker player, you had to fold once your bluff was called.
-
Mentzer's writing skills do not validate HIT.
Mentzer is a dangerous introduction to Objectivism, because he leads to rationalism.
Mentzer tried to deduce HIT from philosophy instead of inducing it from physiology.
Starting Strength: A Simple and Practical Guide for Coaching Beginners is a superior source for exercise technique.
HST is one of many programs that justify its variables:
"You tell me which is the pseudo-scientific system."
Why do I have to choose one or the other? This is a Morton's Fork.
Your approach here consists of quoting the formulations of others,
then expecting the reader to be convinced of an argument that you
can't quite articulate. This amounts to "Mentzer sucks! And, um -- my
current guru, Haycock, will explain the 'how and why' in this quote."
If this is true, you don't really know it yourself; iow, there's not much
you in your argument. So, I suspect that your essay is delayed
by more than time constraints.
Trying to fit everything into your analogy template might prove problematic
in light of the inherent rationalism required for such an approach.
But take as much time as you need. I just hope that you don't jump
to another training protocol in the meantime; you might have to change
the name of your essay to "Haycock: the Nathaniel and Barbara Branden
of Weight-training." -- then post some quotes from James Valliant, and
Greg Glassman of CrossFit -- to tell us all why.
-
My post was meant to be a teaser - the essay will be more informative. However, if you've read the essays against Kelley (The ARI-TOC Dispute), my essay against Mentzer will be similar in nature. In fact, anyone talented in philosophical detection can do this on your own; substitute HST (Bryan Haycock, Dan Moore, Borge Fagerli, etc.) for ARI, & HIT (Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden, etc.) for TOC, then digest the arguments against Kelley & see if you can notice the parallels against Mentzer.
I used to post as 'BIGBANGSingh,' where I previously argued against Mentzer.
Haycock is one of many in the fitness industry who create pseudo-scientific systems
to peddle their needless supplement lines. He should be mentioned in the same breath
with Joe Weider, not ARI.
And yes, Mentzer was guilty of rationalism -- like a young Peikoff and many "Objectivists".
They also like to deal in weak, questionable or false analogies.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Eight Great Plays -- Leonard Peikoff
in Marketplace
Posted
Auction ends today.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/280918232586?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1586.l2649