From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 13:49:43 +0800
To: Robert Hettinga <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anonymous stock trades.
In-Reply-To: <v03006f0caddd1c3bbce1@[199.0.65.105]>
Message-ID: <9606071739.AA04525@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>According to your logic above, it seems that all species are *much* more
>important than man. But, with most "liberal" logic, there's a paradox here.
>Let's explore it bit, shall we, by looking at the other side of the balance
>sheet you just created?

No, you miss the point. Friedman has become a slave to his theory, he is 
attempting to push his idea even to solve a situation it clearly cannot. There 
are good reasons to conserve whale stocks irrespective of your eccological 
position. Without sufficient stocks the whaling industry will go the way of the 
carrier pidgeon canning industry.

>Tell me, Phill, what's *your* pricetag on a single *human* life? The entire
>gross global product is not enough? It's this kind of, well, muzzy-headed
>innumerate (yes, *Dr.* Hallam-Baker, *innumerate*) silliness that has our
>intellectuals believing the hoax, put convincingly enough to get published
>in "respected" academic places like "Social Text", that reality (physics,
>in this case) is optional.

Bob, you are way off base here. You are putting up a straw man. I have not 
endorsed the views of Social text, I've not even mentioned them. 


As I stated I am much more inclined to the logical positivist view than to the 
continental school of philosophy of which social text is an exemplar. My views 
on Derrida and his school are pretty negative, he has perhaps three good ideas 
and has been eeking them out with showmanship. I don't think that the 
deconstructionists are able to enter into a rational debate because they 
continually consider themselves obliged to challenge the terms of the debate. 

I'm fairly familiar with the debate that Social Text engages in and I consider 
it to be pretty bogus. They are arguing that language is insufficient for the 
purposes of their discussion so they create a new vocabulary without 
preconceptions. This project is doomed to failure since there is no means of 
defining the new language except in terms of the one in common usage they have 
rejected. So one might as well use plain language for arguement.

This is why the Web is heavilly influenced by Hermenuetics, the point Sokal was 
making was actually one which is central to the work of Hiedegger and Gadamer. 
The establishment of a shared vocabulary is necessary for communication, 
communication defines being. It is entierely illogical for someone claiming to 
be establishing a theory of communication to do so by attempting to establish a 
private ontology. The Social Text people are refuted by their own work. 


>Can you say "Sophistry", boys and girls? I knew you could. No offense to
>the, er, numerate computer science people out there, but it seems that
>*Dr.* Hallam-Baker is living proof that you can get an entire *doctorate*
>in the field, and not learn to count. 

Bob, you would be able to make your point better if you had an understanding of 
the principles you are discussing. I have some understanding of philosophical 
method and how to apply it. Your point on sophistry is a straw man. Solopcism is 
a paradox, it is an argument which demonstrates the inadequacy of our system of 
thought. Descartes and Hume argued the point at great length, whether mind or 
sensation is primary. 


I fail to see how you make the bridge from comments on Friedman to Social Text. 
I was merely pointing out that I consider Friedman to be overly ideological and 
that the certainty he claims for his results are not backed by empirical proof. 
He has described a theory which is impossible to prove or disprove because it is 
impossible to perform controlled experiments. Would the US ecconomy be stronger 
if Carter had won in 1980 instead of Reagan? Its impossible to say.


If the libertarian fringe does not wish to remain so I suggest you try the 
following:-

1) Never ever start a post by directly stating that someone is an ignoramous.

2) Accept the fact that some people do not accept the axioms you are arguing 
from.

3) Differentiate between advancing your arguement and advancing your ego.


The first is the most important. If you have no respect for the people you are 
arguing against you will utterly fail to convince them of anything.