BenevolentM
Posts: 3394
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
Allow me to state what I wrote in another thread in another way. No doubt this will be a revelation to many. Your argument is not structurally sound because law is not structurally sound.
This is the central tenet of rational design. The goal/hope is though the techniques employed are unsound there is reason to believe they may be more sound than what we must contend with at present. The problem centers on the accuracy of this assertion.
The following is an excerpt from the long post that I did not post:
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"I doubt you could publish a paper on the subject."
You seem to come to that semi-condescending attitude honestly, so I take no offense. I have no intention however of publishing a paper that very few would read or understand.
Admittedly, it wasn't a nice thing to say. Thankfully you managed to absorb the punch and saw through to the truth. Since I've made myself familiar with scholarly publication I know something about it. Though it is true scholarly publications are often rarely read and understood by few it enables you to accomplish two things. In order to publish you have to work very hard to reach the summit of human knowledge in order to even contemplate such a thing. Why bother with doing this? It goes back to intellectual honesty. You can't be honest unless you have put your shoulder to the wheel. In the absence of such hard work you are delusional. If you are intentionally delusional, you are intentionally robbing yourself of your personal power. It could be argued that this is the behavior of a submissive, but not that of a true dominant personality.
Now to discuss the second point. Formally speaking the opinions of others are immaterial. Knowledge is not acquire by taking an opinion poll apart from the ability of an opinion poll to harvest opinions. Opinion polls yield a narrow class of knowledge that is not in general useful. It is a tool often employed by social scientists. What we know about statistics was not derived via an opinion poll though opinion polls employ statistics. What we know about statistics came from an individual, the Christ of statistics, that was further developed by a handful of people who followed him, disciples. Knowledge is not acquired through democratic processes, but it gets worse. Formally speaking, your opinion is also immaterial. It doesn't matter what you think either.
Why am I saying this? I am saying that the number of people who matter are few. That scholarly publications are often rarely read and understood by few should not deter you. What matters is, Are you conversing with the people who matter.
Revision History
I thought to add the above excerpt.
< Message edited by BenevolentM -- 1/20/2011 11:48:52 AM >
|
RE: Raising the debt ceiling - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread