Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

[AisA]

It doesn't matter whether a country is a haven for terrorists.  It matters whether or not they are a threat to America.  The 9/11 hijackers were funded with Saudia money and money from Islamic charities around the world and they got their flight training in America, not Afghanistan.  15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia.

A country that is a haven for terrorists is a greater threat to America than Iraq was.

In the first place, you have claimes that it is not possible to objectively assess the threat posed by another country. So is your statement that Iraq was not a threat subjective or arbitrary?

In the second place, do you have anything to support this assertion? It rests on the premise that the number of terrorists within a nation’s borders determines whether or not it is a threat to America. The old Soviet Union, circa 1960 - 1970s, had very few terrorists. Is it your position that the Soviet Union at that time was not a threat to America?

Your response to my post also illustrates why discussions like this never seem to go anywhere.

The pattern goes like this:

1) I state that we do not have to kill all the terrorists. If we leave them no economic infrastructure, they will not be a threat to us.

2) You deny this by pointing to how poor Afghanistan was, citing it as the source of the 9/11 attackers.

3) I point out that this is not true. Afghanistan’s support for the 9/11 hijackers was small compared to the money they got from Saudi sources and the flight training in the U. S.

4) You respond by asserting that a country that is a haven for terrorists is a greater threat than Iraq.

You see what has happened? You have changed the subject and introduced another topic to debate.

Regarding your comment: "Now, of course, Iraq is yet another haven for terrorists."

The phrase, “of course”, means that something necessarily follow in the “course of” events. So, it is your position that any use of the U. S. military is bound to create terrorist havens? If so, why aren’t Japan, Germany, France and a whole host of other places we have liberated full of terroritst?

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 2 2005, 05:30 PM)

The message we have been sending is that it is okay to attack America, we won't fight back.  Prior to 9/11, there had been a long string of attacks against American interests here and abroad, with little or no response from us.  Terrorists bombed our embassies, bombed our overseas military barracks, bombed the World Trade Center, bombed the U.S.S. Cole warship, bombed American Hotels, murdered U.S. ambassadors and blew up U.S. airplanes -- all with little response from us.  That is the message we were sending.

I notice that you are only mentioning Clinton-era crap. I'm not a big fan of the guy, so that's not going to do much for me.

I do not understand the relevance of Clinton to this. I am giving you examples of how we were attacked and failed to respond. Why does the validity of the example depend on who was president at the time?

You are giving too much credit to the guy in charge when those things were happening. (Or blame, I suppose). This stuff builds up over time and isn't too predictable. A lot of greviances being expressed go back to Reagan and further. If you were to see the way other's see America in the world, you wouldn't have the view that we are too soft. It's quite the opposite. Before WWII, we didn't intervene much at all in other countries affairs, and the founders wanted it that way.

Bin Laden’s 9/11 strategy, as described in his own words, was to capitalize on what he perceived to be American weakness and unwillingness to fight in foreign lands. The message he was getting was clear: hit us hard enough, and we will go home. Does that sound like he considered us an aggressive bully?

It is true that countless leftists and pacifists of all stripes have painted America as a bully, but the facts do not support this.

Yeah, I'm sure bin Laden would never lie to get us to lower our defenses.

I’m certain bin Laden would lie. The point is, he has totally changed his tune since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. He has gotten less militant, not more militant as your backlash theory suggests would be the case.

"al Qaeda" means "the base" and is a database of those who were involved in that conflict. We then trained them because we refused to see past that conflict. We also didn't care that they were fundamentalist crazies, because "my enemy's enemy is my friend." And then, when the dust settled, we left them in their wartorn country without much aid or reward for fighting the good fight and the country has remained in that state since.

So, your theory is that we were not giving Afghanistan sufficient foreign aid? We were giving them $150 million a year. The primary reason the country remained in a terrible state was the fanatical, 5th century barbaric rule of the Taliban, and the tribal mentality of the population that led them to submit to it.

Poverty is not caused by insufficient foreign aid. If it were, America would be the most poverty stricken nation on earth, because we receive foreign aid from no one.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 2 2005, 05:30 PM)

I've now given you six cases of significant nose-sticking that did not produce any backlash.  But this contradicts your prior statement that, "Every time we stick our noses where they don't belong, backlash occurs."

Our noses were welcome in France and NATO, and belonged in Japan since they attacked us. As far as Afghanistan, 2001 was the result of a previous backlash from 20 years previous. It might be another 20 before we see the backlash of this one. As for Panama and Granada, the only backlash I know of is a tainting of the American image (and legitimacy) in the eyes of the rest of the world. All those little insignicant times that we do things that others see as bullying or empirical amount to a nasty picture. Maybe I was over-stating it when I said every time. Here's a good article on the idea of "blowback": http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

I agree with ex-bannana-eater’s response to this.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 2 2005, 05:30 PM)

So "threat" could be made to mean "non-threat"?  This is silly.  It is obvious, for example, that Great Britain is not a threat to the U.S., but that North Korea is. 

Since you capitalized the "O" in Objective, I assume you are asking for Objectivism's answer to the argument you just quoted.  My answer would be that mere speech cannot be construed to be support for the enemy.  Now, demonstrations that interfere with operations at military bases or raising funds for the enemy are obviously a different matter.

I was thinking more of turning a "non-threat" into a "threat" with the right criteria. What I'm trying to get at is an objective standard as to what is a threat. It may be obvious when you use 2 extremes, but as you move towards the center it becomes a little hazy. Subjective. I know you aren't claiming to have some special intuition that makes it obvious when a threat is near. So what is it? Since we knew that Iraq didn't have weapons (and we did), all the other points were moot.

In the first place, it is interesting how you simultaneously argue that there is no way to determine the threat posed by a country without being arbitrary or subjective, then in the next sentence you declare that Iraq was not a threat. Are you being arbitrary or are you being subjective?

In the second place, why do you say that we knew Iraq didn’t have weapons? Iraq certainly had WMDs at the time they gassed the Kurds. Every intelligence agency on the planet concluded that Iraq likely did have WMDs – the debate at the time was over how to respond to this fact, not whether or not it was a fact.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 2 2005, 05:30 PM)

If the guy in question has no criminal record and the negative thing he said about me was that I do not cut my grass often enough, no, I would certainly not have the right to kill him.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 2 2005, 05:30 PM)

The fact that situations must be judged and evaluated does not make the process subjective or arbitrary.  Was the invasion of Europe to stop Hitler arbitrary?  Is it your position that the choice of Hitler as an enemy was subjective, and therefore it was no more justified tban, say, an invasion of Canada?  Going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was completely arbitrary? The decision to view nations that explicitly call for, "Death to America" as enemies, instead of allies, is mere subjective whimsy?

Nothing that I have said can be construed to mean that everyone is a potential threat.  That is the lamest straw man argument I've heard in a while.

If you have to sort the validity and rationality of different facts, then there is a subjective element to it.

Are you saying that all human thought is subjective? Does this mean you think every jury verdict is subjective or arbitrary?

You have to say, "well, if we leave Saddam alone, he'll do this," but you can't know what will happen in the future.

I can know that a lunatic sitting on enormous oil reserves, with a history of invading his neighbors, with a demonstrated willingness to use WMDs, and with a track record of seeking nuclear weapons, is a threat to everyone. What is subjective or arbitrary about that?

I can know that nations that explicitly call for the destruction of America, as the Iranians regularly do, do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have no right to make such threats and be free of the consequences.

I can know that a nation like North Korea, which denies the existence of rights and treats its own citizens as rightless slaves, cannot be counted on to respect my rights, and thus must be considered an enemy that cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them.

, As I've shown here, different premises lead to different conclusions. All my premises (although completely different from yours for the most part) are based on facts and personal experience, as are yours. Hitler is too easy a target, especially when compared to Canada, since the gulf is really wide. But at some point a line has to be drawn in that gray in-between area. I'm also not saying "completely arbitrary" because that is too extreme as well. It's like how a scientist knows that there is a factor of error in his measurements because absolute precision is impossible. But the factor of error in interpersonal (and by extension international) relations is huge because our instruments aren't precise at all. It's too chaotic.

Your premise seems to be that before we can take any action to destroy obvious threats, we must demonstrate an ability to distinguish all the borderline cases. Why?

We had no more ability, indeed we had far less ability, to distinguish all the borderline cases the morning of December 8, 1941, than we have today. Should we have refrained from going to war with Japan as a result?

When we detected the installation of medium range nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962, we had little ability to distinguish the borderline cases. Should we have permitted the missiles to remain for this reason?

Why is the right to self-defense contingent on being able to discriminate all possible threats from all non-threats? If a man puts a gun to your head, must you be able to distinguish all possible murderers from non-murderers before defending yourself against this obvious threat?

[Inspector]

I wanted to add something.  I just learned that Ayn Rand testified at the House Unamerican Activities Committee.

I suggest you read her testimony. It is the article we are both looking for.

[heizeus]

You reject the Objectivist philosophy of history, and you assault Objectivism's highest value, reason, by attributing subjectivity to understanding borderline cases among the referents of a concept ("threat").

I'm not "assaulting" reason. I'm assaulting abusing reason to justify actions that are irrational, i.e. the standard Objectivist foreign policy. I am of course saying that at some point, we must accept that our choices may be wrong and be open to re-evaluate our thinking, as scientists do whenever evidence is found to contradict existing theories. It just seems like Objectivism is a little too open to personal interpretation as a philosophy. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but it's not really objective either. I'm not even sure any philosophy can be absolutely objective. And that's ok, but let's call it what it is.

These points raise a question: What is your philosophy?

I'm still figuring that out. That's part of the reason that I'm hanging out here. I used to call myself an Objectivist, but that doesn't really fit completely anymore.

If your philosophy isn't a standard one, with a recognizable name, would you identify the essential principle in each branch of your philosophy?

I'll admit that I don't know enough about philosophy to answer this question.

Your answer may help clarify your bewildering arguments -- by providing context for them.

If I could answer that question, I'm not sure I'd want to. Maybe I don't want to be pigeon-holed by showing you my hand. (And mixing my metaphors) I don't particularly care for labels, since they are too restrictive. It gives a person a chance to stop thinking about a concept by dismissing someone as a "____-ist" or whatever.

[heizeus]

In the first place, you have claimes that it is not possible to objectively assess the threat posed by another country.  So is your statement that Iraq was not a threat subjective or arbitrary?

Yes, it is certainly subjective. The facts that I've seen are objective (the ones that are most likely true, at least) but the conclusions I draw from them (and which facts I know or accept as true) are subjective. Same as you guys. Same as everyone. It's like in science. Right now, the evolutionary theory is the best one that fits all the facts that we have. But it's possible that there are facts missing that will turn up later and we will throw Darwin's theory out, like how quantum theory did in physics.

Is it your position that the Soviet Union at that time was not a threat to America?

Actually, I believe that the threat of the Soviet Union was vastly over-estimated. You could say that nothing really bad came from it because we fought the good fight. I could say it was because it was a big bluff-off between both superpowers. If we hadn't been so propagandistic (is that a word?) about the threat, maybe we could have settled the issue without going into massive debt buying nukes.

4) You respond by asserting that a country that is a haven for terrorists is a greater threat than Iraq.

You see what has happened?  You have changed the subject and introduced another topic to debate.

I didn't change the subject. Saudi is a haven for terrorists. Most of the people in a terrorist organization are the poor people at the bottom. Saudi has a rich oligarchy at the top but mostly poor people. Of course, the money comes from the guys at the top, but it's the guys at the bottom that do the dirty work. I'm not sure about this, but I would be surprised if the actual hijackers were the guys with the money. They were the poor, ignorant, desperate followers who bought into the bullshit. Here's what happens: there are a lot of pissed off people somewhere. A guy sees the potential to gain power by leading this mass of people. So he finds a way to aim them in a certain direction and uses his money and other resources to do so. That's what Hitler did. And by the way, WWII was a backlash of WWI because of all the discontented Germans who were poor after that first war (because of the raw deal they got in the Treaty of Versailles.)

So, it is your position that any use of the U. S. military is bound to create terrorist havens?  If so, why aren’t Japan, Germany, France and a whole host of other places we have liberated full of terroritst?

No, your misinterpretation of my position says that. My position is the wrong use of the US military will create terrorist havens. As much as you try to stretch it, Iraq isn't WWII Germany, and Saddam isn't Hitler. He probably doesn't even stand out in the top 10 worst dictators of the world, but we know more about him because we've had the spotlight on the oil-rich country for more than a decade now. Also, Japan isn't a country we liberated. We fought them for revenge, but left the Emperor in charge because the people saw him as a deity. If we had done a regime change, I suspect Japan may have become a bigger threat later on than they did. The money that we gave them to rebuild didn't hurt matters either. Afghanistan we left decimated. $150 million a year isn't really that much, especially when there's a totalitarian regime running the show. It's a lot for an individual. Not too much for a country. Regardless, the fact that the Taliban was in power there was because we propped them up so they could fight the Ruskies. Good choice.

It is true that countless leftists and pacifists of all stripes have painted America as a bully, but the facts do not support this. 

I’m certain bin Laden would lie.  The point is, he has totally changed his tune since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.  He has gotten less militant, not more militant as your backlash theory suggests would be the case.

Depends on which facts you take into account to form your theories. Read some Chomsky. The man has facts. Decide what you will about his interpretations, but he's got plenty of facts.

Poverty is not caused by insufficient foreign aid.

You are correct in this. It is caused by war, bad philosophies, and/or dictatorial regimes, among other things. But it is possible to help a country back up, as Japan illustrates.

In the first place, it is interesting how you simultaneously argue that there is no way to determine the threat posed by a country without being arbitrary or subjective, then in the next sentence you declare that Iraq was not a threat.  Are you being arbitrary or are you being subjective?

Let's just say it wasn't proven for me beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'll look up what Scott Ritter said again about the weapons. He refuted the claims pretty well. I believe there were some weapons, but nothing too serious. If the weapons inspections were allowed to continue, that would have solved it. And to answer your other question, every jury verdict is subjective. Studies have shown that people of different races will be given different punishments for the same crime with the same evidence. The reason we have the whole "shadow of a doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" ideas is we'd rather let guilty people go than have innocent people jailed or executed. And yet, there are always innocent people let go from not only prison but death row.

I can know that a lunatic sitting on enormous oil reserves, with a history of invading his neighbors, with a demonstrated willingness to use WMDs, and with a track record of seeking nuclear weapons, is a threat to everyone.  What is subjective or arbitrary about that?

Bush fits that criteria as well, with the exception of "his neighbors" being changed to "a country far enough away that they weren't a real threat."

I can know that nations that explicitly call for the destruction of America, as the Iranians regularly do, do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.  They have no right to make such threats and be free of the consequences. 

Oh c'mon. Our "leader" calls for the destruction of many countries, including Venezuela because of their democratically elected Chavez. That doesn't mean they have the legitimate right to attack us. Words are words. Need more proof than that. I'm not saying to trust Iran, but we just don't have enough guns to fight all the people who say "America is bad." And if we did, more of those people would pop up as a consequence of those actions.

Your premise seems to be that before we can take any action to destroy obvious threats, we must demonstrate an ability to distinguish all the borderline cases.  Why?  Why is the right to self-defense contingent on being able to discriminate all possible threats from all non-threats? 

That's not what I'm saying. I was pointing out that your examples are easy to see because Hitler is obviously worse than Canada. But if you are advocating an Objective view of the world, we should be able to sort out some ethical grays with it, since there would technically be no gray, right? So where do we draw the line, even if it has to be approximately? When is it Objectively "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

[AisA]

In the first place, you have claimed that it is not possible to objectively assess the threat posed by another country.  So is your statement that Iraq was not a threat subjective or arbitrary?

Yes, it is certainly subjective.  The facts that I've seen are objective (the ones that are most likely true, at least) but the conclusions I draw from them (and which facts I know or accept as true) are subjective.  Same as you guys.  Same as everyone.  It's like in science.  Right now, the evolutionary theory is the best one that fits all the facts that we have.  But it's possible that there are facts missing that will turn up later  and we will throw Darwin's theory out, like how quantum theory did in physics.

Let’s define our terms. According to Objectivism, the term objective has both a metaphysical and an epistemological meaning. "Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason ) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." (From the The Ayn Rand Lexicon, taken from "The Objectivist Newsletter", Feb. 1965,7)

“The subjective is the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional.” (From the The Ayn Rand Lexicon, taken from "Art and Moral Treason" in The Romantic Manifesto, 148; pb150.)

Given these definitions, it is certainly not true that every conclusion reached by the mind of man is subjective. What, then, do you mean by subjective?

I am going to refrain from answering the rest of your post until this is resolved, because no progress can be made if you regard all decisions as arbitrary.

[heizeus]

"Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness.  Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason ) in accordance with certain rules (logic)."  “The subjective is the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional.”

What I've been aiming at mostly is the idea of objective ethics: the idea that morality is either black or white. Life and morality are much too complicated and rich in nuances to be nailed down to black and white rules. That's one of the reasons the legal system is full of so many laws: it's been refined repeatedly to try to cover every possible situation, and it's impossible. If we had the ability to see the results of our actions with better accuracy, objective morality would be possible.

But let's imagine that there is an objective Truth, i.e. The One and Only Truth. We can all strive for that Truth, but we can never know when we've found it. We can all come up with our own personal, ie subjective interpretations of what the Truth may be. Since absolute omniscience is impossible, you can never know enough to see the full picture. You get a few photos, and form a theory based on what you've seen. The idea that subjectivity is "arbitrary, irrational, and blindly emotional" is ridiculous. Here's one definition from dictionary.com: "Existing only within the experiencer's mind." That's true for every philosophical theory or any other abstract concept that can't exist in a concrete form. Ideas are subjective. Here are 2 more:

1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

A rational concept that cannot be proven absolutely would still be considered subjective, since you can't know that it is objectively true. Really, it seems to be consent of the majority that determines what is objectively true, like "That tree is over there." The schizophrenic might see a purple elephant. If 2 of them have the same hallucination, but no one else sees it, what's objectively true? Most people would say the tree because more people see it. Now I'm not advocating that the Truth is whatever the majority says...oh no. Maybe the schizophrenic sees the world correctly and the rest of us don't. But I don't know what I'm getting at here. I'm just sort of letting my thoughts pour onto the page. Ask me some questions to clarify if I haven't made my thoughts clear.

[Inspector]

Ladies and Gentlemen, take a good long look at the above post (#206).

I think my ideas here need no further defense if THAT is the mental state of the attackers.

[TetrisGod]

The schizophrenic might see a purple elephant.  If 2 of them have the same hallucination, but no one else sees it, what's objectively true?  Most people would say the tree because more people see it.

HEY! I like my paper made out of purple elephants.

Remember kids, watch out for trees...they might steal your peanuts

Ever wonder why you don't see a tree and a purple elephant in the same place at the same time...makes you think eh?

thank you thank you, i'll be here all week

[heizeus]

I think my ideas here need no further defense if THAT is the mental state of the attackers.

Besides my facetious purple elephant/tree example, what have I said that can be just brushed aside instead of refuting? I know that you don't believe morality to be a matter of majority consensus, or you wouldn't be an Objectivist. I also don't believe in the majority ruling in that arena. So, humor me, and rip my thinking apart. Apparently I need it.

[TetrisGod]

Besides my facetious purple elephant/tree example, what have I said that can be just brushed aside instead of refuting?  I know that you don't believe morality to be a matter of majority consensus, or you wouldn't be an Objectivist.  I also don't believe in the majority ruling in that arena.  So, humor me, and rip my thinking apart.  Apparently I need it.

If you don't think that viewing a tree is objective then no amount of purple elephants will help.

Go read the chapter on the validity of sense perception in ITOE. It should answer how questions quite thoroughly on why the viewing of reality through our senses is valid. If you still believe in purple tree elephants ...

[heizeus]

I just noticed my warning level. Don't you guys thinks it's a little petty for you to "warn" me for engaging in a serious discussion? I was warned for "propaganda" when I'm not trying to indoctrinate anyone, just trying to debate and better understand where you are coming from. I don't see how coming from an opposing point than you is worthy of being warned. I feel like arguing with someone is the best way to reinforce and better define your own position.

[Capitalism Forever]

Don't you guys thinks it's a little petty for you to "warn" me for engaging in a serious discussion?

Perhaps you see it as a serious discussion, but that doesn't mean that others see it the same way.

[AisA]

What I've been aiming at mostly is the idea of objective ethics: the idea that morality is either black or white.  Life and morality are much too complicated and rich in nuances to be nailed down to black and white rules. 

If "nailed down by black and white rules" means stating something to be true or false, right or wrong, with certainty, then you just stated a black and white rule. "Life and morality are much too complicated...." is an absolute statement on your part; it leaves no room for doubt or gray areas; it leaves no possibility that life and morality may not be too complicated. You have made as black and white a statement as one can make.

Please read on before you start to respond. There is a point to this.

That's one of the reasons the legal system is full of so many laws: it's been refined repeatedly to try to cover every possible situation, and it's impossible.

You just declared something to be impossible. That is another black and white rule; you leave open no room for doubt, no possibility that every situation can be covered.

If we had the ability to see the results of our actions with better accuracy, objective morality would be possible.

Now you have identified in clear terms what you consider to be the preconditions of objective morality -- in other words, you just made another black and white ruling. "If such and such conditions were met, then it would be possible" leaves no room for doubt.

But let's imagine that there is an objective Truth, i.e. The One and Only Truth.  We can all strive for that Truth, but we can never know when we've found it.

How do you know this statement to be true? If we can never know when we've found the truth, then how can you know that you have found the truth with this particular statement?

The statement, "We can never know when we have found the truth" would have to include itself and is thus self-contradictory.

The point is this: implicit in every claim to knowledge, is the idea that man can posses knowledge. It is a contradiction to claim to know , with certainty, that nothing can be known with certainty.

Every time you open your mouth to state a fact, you are implicitly accepting the idea that it is possible to know facts. Every attempt to articulate knowledge presupposes that it is possible to posses knowledge.

This is where you really must begin -- with the understanding that knowledge is possible, that it is possible to know things with certainty (in a given context, but that is a discussion for later) and that it is a contradiction to claim to possess the knowledge that knowledge is impossible.

If you actually believed that knowledge is impossible, then you would have to conclude that you know nothing -- in which case the only thing to do is go to a corner and be quiet.

So let me advance the discussion with a single question? Do you know for a fact, with no qualifiers and no maybes, that you exist and that you are conscious?

[heizeus]

So let me advance the discussion with a single question? Do you know for a fact, with no qualifiers and no maybes, that you exist and that you are conscious?

I think, therefore I am.

If "nailed down by black and white rules" means stating something to be true or false, right or wrong, with certainty, then you just stated a black and white rule.  "Life and morality are much too complicated...." is an absolute statement on your part; it leaves no room for doubt or gray areas; it leaves no possibility that life and morality may not be too complicated.  You have made as black and white a statement as one can make.

Everything I say (or anyone else says, for that matter), could be prefaced with "I think..." or "In my opinion..." From what I've seen, life and morality are much too complicated to be painted in black and white. If I get some piece of information that contradicts that theory, I'll adjust it and will then throw away all the colored paints. I'm not doubting that the world exists objectively independent of my senses or that reason is the best tool for analyzing it. I'm doubting the accuracy of theories or conclusions. It's like when you measure something to be 1.253355654 meters long. You have to cut it off at some number of decimal places based on the precision of your instruments. Binary code is true or false, but if you use only 2 bits, your precision is almost non-existent. No matter how many bits you use, you could always have 1 more, like with decimal places. So based on limitations in human brainsize and perception (we can't see all frequencies of the light spectrum, for instance) we must be missing some information at all times. In addition, we all have different experiences and knowledge, so the conclusions we come to will be different because of these different snapshots.

The point is this: implicit in every claim to knowledge, is the idea that man can posses knowledge.  It is a contradiction to claim to know , with certainty, that nothing can be known with certainty.

Why does the idea that man can possess knowledge require the knowledge to be with 100% certainty? In response to your claim that I left no room for doubt in my statements, I always leave room for doubt and search to expand my knowledge by disproving previous misconceptions and forming new theories to fix them. That's part of the reason why I'm here, trying to discuss this and see things from your point of view.

If you actually believed that knowledge is impossible, then you would have to conclude that you know nothing -- in which case the only thing to do is go to a corner and be quiet.

Scientists accept that their measurements aren't 100% correct, and that they never can be, without hugging their knees in the corner and whimpering.

[AisA]

I think, therefore I am.

 

Somehow I knew that you would not answer this question unequivocally.

I'll make one last try -- and I promise, this will be the last: Do you know with 100% certainty, without any "ifs", "ands" or "buts", that you exist and that you are conscious?

From what I've seen, life and morality are much too complicated to be painted in black and white.

Doesn't this constitute a conclusion? And have you not, below, ruled that one cannot be certain about the accuracy of conclusions?

I'm not doubting that the world exists objectively independent of my senses or that reason is the best tool for analyzing it.

Good.

I'm doubting the accuracy of theories or conclusions.

So you have come to the conclusion that you should doubt the accuracy of your conclusions. Would you not, then, have to doubt the accuracy of this conclusion, the conclusion in the quotes?

There is really no point in continuing this if you cannot recognize that these statements are contradictory -- and that reaching a contradiction is proof that there is an error in your thinking.

Here is a conclusion that I have reached: If I do not eat, I will die. Now, how much doubt do you have about the accuracy of that conclusion?

[Iakeo]

I think, therefore I am. 

Which, of course, is perfectly backwards as far as objectivism is concerned.

Now,.. what is it, Heizeus (meaning: "Hey, Zeus!"..?), that is your question as

regards this thread and your claim that "perfect accuracy of knowledge of reality

is not knowable"..?

In other words,.. what are you arguing about? What conclusion do you draw from

the fact that "perfect accuracy" is not possible?

Is it that because absolute accuracy is impossible, any discrimination based on

any level of accuracy is useless?

I find discrimination based on "real" levels of accuracy quite useful,.. myself.

-Iakeo

Edited March 13, 2005 by Iakeo

[heizeus]

Somehow I knew that you would not answer this question unequivocally.

I'll make one last try -- and I promise, this will be the last:  Do you know with 100% certainty, without any "ifs", "ands" or "buts", that you exist and that you are conscious?

I actually thought that was a pretty good answer. I think it sums it up pretty well. If I am experiencing and thinking, then I have to start with that premise or nothing else makes any sense. The nature of that existence is a little less solid. From everything I've seen, learned, and experienced, I have an idea of what existence is like. But if I "woke up" from it like Neo and realized I've been living in the Matrix, I'd have to re-evaluate. Not that I expect that to happen, but 100% accuracy doesn't seem possible.

Doesn't this constitute a conclusion?  And have you not, below, ruled that one cannot be certain about the accuracy of conclusions? 

Yes, and I can't be 100% certain of this conclusion but it's the best I've found so far. If I see facts that contradict it, then I'll rethink my premises.

Would you not, then, have to doubt the accuracy of this conclusion, the conclusion in the quotes?

Yes, that is correct. I don't see why there's a problem with that. It's like knowing there is a margin of error in my conclusions of + or - some value. I just have to keep an open mind and re-assess my point of view regularly.

There is really no point in continuing this if you cannot recognize that these statements are contradictory -- and that reaching a contradiction is proof that there is an error in your thinking.

They are only contradictions if you can't accept that you conclusions may be wrong.

Here is a conclusion that I have reached:  If I do not eat, I will die.  Now, how much doubt do you have about the accuracy of that conclusion?

There's a lot of evidence to support that conclusion, and I'd have to say you are right. Unless of course, you have some previously unknown genetic mutation that allows you to survive off of static electricity in the air. You'd never know it was possible unless you tried. Not that I think that's likely, but there will always be facts that are unknown. Anyway, the discussion that we were branching this off from is that of politics and morality, both of which are so vast and full of data that it's hard to come up with solid, fool-proof conclusions and theories. We don't know whether the domino theory was correct or not, but we could pull up facts that both support or oppose it, and then decide which seems stronger by dismissing or supporting some facts over others. That requires personal interpretation (and extrapolation) from our personal experiences and knowledge bases to make these conclusions.

Edited March 14, 2005 by heizeus

[heizeus]

Which, of course, is perfectly backwards as far as objectivism is concerned.

I am, therefore I think? But you wouldn't know that you "are" unless you could think. You exist as a baby, but probably don't have much knowledge of that existence. "I think, therefore I am" if I remember correctly, is an answer to the question of "how do you know you exist?"

(meaning: "Hey, Zeus!"..?)

Yes.

Is it that because absolute accuracy is impossible, any discrimination based on

any level of accuracy is useless?

No, not at all. That's the kind of "all or nothing" thinking I'm trying to argue against. I'm saying that we need to accept that there are margins of error and to take those into consideration.

I find discrimination based on "real" levels of accuracy quite useful,.. myself.

As do I. That's my point. If I come to a conclusion based on the facts I have on hand, and my personal experiences in life, I need to know that they may not be objectively true. I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but it's a possibility.

[EC]

We say I am, therefore I think because our philosophy is a primacy of existence philosophy. Existence exists. That comes first. And you know it. You can't know it if you don't exist. Existence is primary.

[Iakeo]

I am, therefore I think? But you wouldn't know that you "are" unless you could think. You exist as a baby, but probably don't have much knowledge of that existence. "I think, therefore I am" if I remember correctly, is an answer to the question of "how do you know you exist?"

The protestation against the phrase "I think therefore I am" is taking that phrase

to mean "I create myself and what I percieve [a part of reality] by the act of

thinking about it."

The reason that's backward, for objectivism, is that we perceive reality with our

senses, we don't "create" reality by sensing it.

Reality was here first. Things that don't "think" still "are".

Existence exists, as it exists, regardless of anyone (any existent) thinking about it.

Babies know they exist, and they think. Babies are not less real because they

think "differently" than "older-babies".

The question, "How do you know you exist?", is not answered by "because I

think". Because even if you DIDN'T think, you'd still exist.

No, not at all. That's the kind of "all or nothing" thinking I'm trying to argue

against. I'm saying that we need to accept that there are margins of error and to

take those into consideration.

Show me any "all or nothing" attitude relating to anything that isn't appropriately

dealt with as a binary (exists or not) question?

If you ask if "absolute accuracy in any way" is possible in these forums, you'd

probably get the answer that "only those parts of reality that can be dealt with in a

binary way can be absolutely accurately specified". All other measurement is

approximate.

As do I. That's my point. If I come to a conclusion based on the facts I have on hand, and my personal experiences in life, I need to know that they may not be objectively true. I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but it's a possibility.

It's a choice. Do you accept the fact that reality (existence) is real, and concrete,

or not? And I'm not talking about YOUR existence, I'm talking about ALL OF

REALITY, ie the universe qua "UNI-VERSE" ("singe turn", "one presentation").

This is one of those appropriate binary choices. IF you think it's possible

that reality is an "illusion" (which usually means it's the creation of some super-

natural "illusionist"), then have fun with that, as it's quite amusing, and anxiety

producing.

Objectivists just don't want to take on that particular anxiety ridden irrational

assumption.

Once again: Reality can never be percieved absolutely accurately in human

specific-unit-based measurement, but that doesn't make reality un-real.

-Iakeo

[AisA]

So what have you said? First, you assert that you have concluded that “life is way too complicated and nuanced for black and white rules”.

Then, you proceed to contradict yourself by asserting that one can never know the accuracy of one’s conclusions.

After agreeing that this alleged uncertainty about accuracy would have to apply to your conclusions as well, you proceed to give us another conclusion: namely, that this uncertain position is still the best policy.

But you cannot be certain of the accuracy of this conclusion either, can you? Given your premises, in fact, you cannot conclude anything without the cloud of uncertainty.

And what evidence have you offered in support of this we-can’t-be-sure approach? None, because the position is inherently unsupportable. You cannot defend the conclusion that all conclusions are potentially inaccurate, because the position is self-contradictory.

If "every conclusion includes a margin of error", that statement would have to apply to itself as well, which would mean there is some possibility that every conclusion does not include a margin of error.

Thus, your conclusion that "Iraq was not a threat" has a margin of error, meaning it implicitly concedes the possibility that Iraq was a threat.

They are only contradictions if you can't accept that your conclusions may be wrong.

But the notion that "my conclusions might be wrong" is itself a conclusion -- so how can I accept it as accurate?

There's a lot of evidence to support that conclusion, and I'd have to say you are right. Unless of course, you have some previously unknown genetic mutation that allows you to survive off of static electricity in the air. You'd never know it was possible unless you tried.

Hang on now! "You'd never know it was possible unless you tried" sure sounds like another of those uncertain conclusions. To accept this conclusion with its inherent margin of error means accepting the possibility that I can know without trying.

Not that I think that's likely, but there will always be facts that are unknown.

"There will always be facts that are unknown" is another conclusion -- and you just said that there is always a margin of error with conclusions. Therefore, it might very well be true that there are cases where there are not unknown facts.

Anyway, the discussion that we were branching this off from is that of politics and morality, both of which are so vast and full of data that it's hard to come up with solid, fool-proof conclusions and theories.  We don't know whether the domino theory was correct or not, but we could pull up facts that both support or oppose it, and then decide which seems stronger by dismissing or supporting some facts over others.  That requires personal interpretation (and extrapolation) from our personal experiences and knowledge bases to make these conclusions.

Well, now, there you go again. The statement, "That requires personal interpretation (and extrapolation) from our personal experiences and knowledge bases to make these conclusions" is another conclusion and therefore suspect and possibly erroneous, is it not?

You say that it is "hard to come up with solid, fool-proof conclusions and theories" in politics and morality. I agree that to reach any conclusions in the fields of politics and morality requires a rigorous process of reason with constant reference to the rules of logic.

However, there is a distinction between saying that it is hard and saying it is not possible. Heretofore, in numerous posts, you have steadfastly maintained that it is impossible to know things for sure, not merely hard. Are you changing your position?

[heizeus]

The protestation against the phrase "I think therefore I am" is taking that phrase

to mean "I create myself and what I percieve [a part of reality] by the act of

thinking about it."

I see what you mean, but I didn't mean it that way. It's just the manner that I know that I am conscious. If I weren't, then I wouldn't be able to think about whether I'm conscious or not. I'm not advocating that we create reality with our perceptions.

Babies know they exist, and they think. Babies are not less real because they

think "differently" than "older-babies".

They exist, but they lack the mental capacities (as far as we know) to think about that existence. But of course, they exist.

The question, "How do you know you exist?", is not answered by "because I

think". Because even if you DIDN'T think, you'd still exist.

But you wouldn't know it. You would just do whatever instinctive things animals do and some basic thinking. Although I can't be sure, I doubt dogs sit around and think about existence.

Show me any "all or nothing" attitude relating to anything that isn't appropriately

dealt with as a binary (exists or not) question?

The idea I've been arguing against that to conclude that since obtaining knowledge is possible, that implies that omniscience is possible. Although it's never been said that way by anyone, that is what is being stated in other words. Absolute accuracy requires absolute knowledge.

It's a choice. Do you accept the fact that reality (existence) is real, and concrete,

or not? And I'm not talking about YOUR existence, I'm talking about ALL OF

REALITY, ie the universe qua "UNI-VERSE" ("singe turn", "one presentation").

Yeah, I accept reality is real. Just as I accept evolution is real. All the evidence I've seen points in those directions. If, however, I wake up tomorrow with a VR helmet on, I'll have to re-evaluate. I'm not making those conclusions now because there's no reason to, but my mind is open to possibilities. Oh, and I've read a book that has a scientific theory that we actually live in a "multi-verse" which would really still be the universe, just a different point of view for it. Interesting stuff.

This is one of those appropriate binary choices. IF you think it's possible

that reality is an "illusion" (which usually means it's the creation of some super-

natural "illusionist"), then have fun with that, as it's quite amusing, and anxiety

producing.

I don't see the connection between thinking that it's only a possibility, and it causing anxiety. It's just a fun mental exercise. I'm not betting on these possibilities, but there's no harm in curiousity, is there?

Objectivists just don't want to take on that particular anxiety ridden irrational

assumption.

Once again: Reality can never be percieved absolutely accurately in human

specific-unit-based measurement, but that doesn't make reality un-real.

And once again, I'm not saying that. You guys are the ones saying that my ideas lead to the silly conclusion that reality isn't real. No matter what wacky theories I've thrown around, I still think existence exists. It just makes sense that we don't have all the facts yet.

[Iakeo]

Massive quoting problems.

I'll reply to

soon.

..yikes...

-Iakeo

Edited March 16, 2005 by Iakeo

[heizeus]

AisA: It's getting tedious to quote and respond.

So let me take a step back for a second. First of all, I agree with the Objectivist assertion that reality exists independent of our perceptions. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. This is a conclusion that I've come to by compiling many facts together and finding a common thread. This is the way it always happens. You observe data, see how it fits together, and draw conclusions. I have no reason to doubt the data and won't until someone shows me sufficient evidence that I should. The fitting together of the pieces and drawing conclusions are the more creative, interpretive steps of the process. How much data I have, and what data it is, will change how I interpret it.

This is how scientists always do it. Suppose I'm in the school of Newtonian physics, and then Einstein comes along with his crazy theories. Suddenly, a new conclusion has been drawn that explains parts that weren't understood before. I would be irrational to refuse to accept the new theory. It would also have been false to say that Newton had found the objective truth. He had drawn a conclusion with the data he had and it made sense at the time. Then when conflicting data came about, the theory had to be re-evaluated (because contradictions don't exist, right?)

Now, the conclusion I am drawing is that this is a trend that will continue with the progress of technology. I see no evidence that we will eventually know everything as a race. If someone can prove it to me within a decent margin of error, I'll change my mind.

You seem to think that without being certain of my conclusions, I am paralyzed in life. But not at all. I am more flexible because I keep an open mind, and don't get stuck in dogma shit.

All that said, there are different levels of certainty, based on how much evidence there is. The theories of gravity and evolution, for instance, are much more solid than sociology, psychology, and politics. If I believe that I will survive without food, based on little or no evidence, then I am acting irrationally. But political, economic, and sociological theories are much less developed. To say that one path is the objectively correct one is essentially saying that you know this to be true now and forever. I can't see how that is possible, given that paradigm shifts occur regularly in history.

I don't see how my conclusions are self-contradictory, since I'm not stating that they are objectively true. I have no problem accepting that I may be wrong about a great many things. I don't even expect to change your opinions on anything. But I'm just letting you know that it is possible to live a happy life without being objectively certain. Live and learn.

On the otherhand, if I did manage to change your mind, that would be AWESOME! But I'm not holding my breath.

[Iakeo]

AisA: It's getting tedious to quote and respond.

So let me take a step back for a second.  First of all, I agree with the Objectivist assertion that reality exists independent of our perceptions.  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound.  This is a conclusion that I've come to by compiling many facts together and finding a common thread.  This is the way it always happens.  You observe data, see how it fits together, and draw conclusions.  I have no reason to doubt the data and won't until someone shows me sufficient evidence that I should.  The fitting together of the pieces and drawing conclusions are the more creative, interpretive steps of the process.  How much data I have, and what data it is, will change how I interpret it. 

This is how scientists always do it.  Suppose I'm in the school of Newtonian physics, and then Einstein comes along with his crazy theories.  Suddenly, a new conclusion has been drawn that explains parts that weren't understood before.  I would be irrational to refuse to accept the new theory.  It would also have been false to say that Newton had found the objective truth.  He had drawn a conclusion with the data he had and it made sense at the time.  Then when conflicting data came about, the theory had to be re-evaluated (because contradictions don't exist, right?) 

Now, the conclusion I am drawing is that this is a trend that will continue with the progress of technology.  I see no evidence that we will eventually know everything as a race.  If someone can prove it to me within a decent margin of error, I'll change my mind.

You seem to think that without being certain of my conclusions, I am paralyzed in life.  But not at all.  I am more flexible because I keep an open mind, and don't get stuck in dogma shit. 

All that said, there are different levels of certainty, based on how much evidence there is.  The theories of gravity and evolution, for instance, are much more solid than sociology, psychology, and politics.  If I believe that I will survive without food, based on little or no evidence, then I am acting irrationally.  But political, economic, and sociological theories are much less developed.  To say that one path is the objectively correct one is essentially saying that you know this to be true now and forever.  I can't see how that is possible, given that paradigm shifts occur regularly in history.

I don't see how my conclusions are self-contradictory, since I'm not stating that they are objectively true.  I have no problem accepting that I may be wrong about a great many things.  I don't even expect to change your opinions on anything.  But I'm just letting you know that it is possible to live a happy life without being objectively certain.  Live and learn. 

On the otherhand, if I did manage to change your mind, that would be AWESOME!  But I'm not holding my breath.

The one "dogma" we are allowed is "there should be no dogma".

But that IS a certainty. A non-dogmatic certainty.

I say there is no way to be absolutely accurate, but it is possible to be absolutely

certain. I am absolutely certain that existence exists, and that the more I find out

about it, the better able I'll be to provide for my own happiness.

Will I ever accurately count the number of electrons (I just DON'T want to get into

neutrons or protons right now, thanks) in the universe?

No. "I" won't last long enough, and I don't think this particular "phase" of the

universe will last long enough either.

Does that bother me? Not particularly.

-Iakeo