John (01)
You shouldn't believe everything you read, and that
applies especially to Wikipedia. Wikipedia authors
include scholars and cranks. (02)
Ayn Rand is one of the most controversial authors
of the 20th century. Readers have strong emotional
reactions to her because she wrote about "gut-level"
issues in economics, politics and ethics. She was an
advocate of laissez faire capitalism, limited government
and "selfishness" [self-interest]. She was an atheist.
JFS>
Science doesn't have "movements", and anything that has orthodoxies
is a religion. Physics, for example, has competing groups and people
who disagree with one another until they can get enough data to
clarify their disputes. Engineering (and AI is a branch of engineering)
has specializations. But science and engineering doesn't have warring
factions. That passage shows that so-called "Objectivism" is
a pseudo-science along the lines of Marxism and Freudianism.
RHM>
"That passage" did not identify the nature of the "war".
David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff disagreed about the
definition of "Objectivism". I think you would agree
that definitions are important.
JFS>
In short, I would classify Ayn Rand and her followers as a bunch of
cranks. There is nothing wrong with reading some of that stuff, but
if that is your primary source of information on these topics, I have
no hope for you.
RHM>
Acceptance of Rand's epistemology has been minimal because of
negative reactions to her views on economics, politics and ethics.
It sounds like you have already decided that you will not read
"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", even though
JFS>
... anyone who likes Aristotle can't be all bad. (03)
Dick McCullough
http://mkrmke.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Offline note (04)
> Frank,
>
> On that point I completely agree:
>
> > ontology itself is far from being a science, you may want
> > to remember.
>
> That is why I believe that it is premature to choose one ontology
> that is canonized as an official standard. My recommendation has
> always been that we should develop a systematic classification
> (a lattice or at least a partial ordering) of all ontologies that
> meet minimal criteria for coherence.
>
> Then the choice between them should be determined by the
> marketplace: the users can choose which one(s) are most
> appropriate for their problems.
>
> Re judgmentalism: Proponents of Marxism, Freudianism, and
> Objectivism are among the most judgmental people on earth.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|