From extropians-request@extropy.org Tue Feb 8 03:26:15 1994 Return-Path: extropians-request@extropy.org Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by chaph.usc.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id DAA28183 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 1994 03:26:13 -0800 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA07144; Tue, 8 Feb 94 03:26:08 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA07625 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 8 Feb 1994 06:00:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 06:00:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199402081100.AA07625@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-2-67 - #94-2-83 X-Extropian-Date: February 8, 374 P.N.O. [06:00:33 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 8 Feb 94 Volume 94 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: Cryptographic funnies... [1 msgs] DIET: BGH and disease [1 msgs] EFF Wants You (to add your voice to the crypto fight!) [1 msgs] FDA: Thalidomide [1 msgs] FDA: Thalidomide [1 msgs] High Tide Recedes [1 msgs] High Tide Recedes [1 msgs] London -- Mondex [1 msgs] PCR [1 msgs] PCR: _The Retreat To Commitment_ [1 msgs] rBGH-injected cattle approved by FDA [1 msgs] SEMANTICS: Faith [2 msgs] SOLAR [2 msgs] Support H.R. 3627 [1 msgs] Why Is There Stuff ? [1 msgs] Administrivia: Note: I have increased the frequency of the digests to four times a day. The digests used to be processed at 5am and 5pm, but this was too infrequent for the current bandwidth. Now digests are sent every six hours: Midnight, 6am, 12pm, and 6pm. If you experience delays in getting digests, try setting your digest size smaller such as 20k. You can do this by addressing a message to extropians@extropy.org with the body of the message as ::digest size 20 -Ray Approximate Size: 53198 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chip@netcom.com (Chip Morningstar -- "Software Without Moving Parts") Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 11:38:26 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-67] PCR: _The Retreat To Commitment_ _The Retreat To Commitment_ is the essential work on pancritical rationalism. I can't recommend it highly enough. Chip ------------------------------ From: Stanton McCandlish Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 18:06:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-2-68] rBGH-injected cattle approved by FDA If you ignore the "alien technologies" bit, there may be a kernel of intersting info in here, re: genetic engineering and biomedicine, not to mention nutritional hazards of poorly-tested but "approved" additives and techniques. Forwarded message: >From pacoid@IO.COM Sun Feb 6 09:45:41 1994 Message-Id: <199402061440.IAA20907@illuminati.IO.COM> To: mech@eff.org From: fringeware@IO.COM (FringeWare Inc) List-Server: fringeware-request@io.com Errors-To: fringeware-owner@IO.COM FringeWare-Msg-ID: 806 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 03:36:13 -0500 Reply-To: muddy@wam.umd.edu (gregor markowitz) Subject: MOO - COWS!!! Sent from the cyberdeck of: muddy@wam.umd.edu (gregor markowitz) Sent from the cyberdeck of: muddy@wam.umd.edu (gregor markowitz) If there's one thing we care about here at muddy river boatworks besides boats, it's COWS. Yesterday was the first day wherein it was legal to sell dairy products from cows injected with rBGH. This is a sick and trecherous alien technology, the fruits of many cattle mutilations. People, we are going to have to go without milk and dairy for a while. This is hard to take at the boatworks. There is no labeling required on the contaminated products, so all we can hope is that dairy outfits who do not use the genetically spliced hormones will label THEIR stuff. We can only hope a boycott will make rBGH unworkable and it will be removed from the industry. PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT USE ANY DAIRY PRODUCTS UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN THEY CONTAIN NO MILK FROM BGH INJECTED COWS. We affixed this information sheet to the dairy cooler in our local stores. Please print it on your printer and put it up in the dairy section of your store. Also, send this to everyone you can think of. Ask them to put it up in their stores! BOYCOTT ALIEN TECHNOLOGIES! BOYCOTT PUS MILK! ----------------reprint flyer below ------------------ Starting on February 3, 1994, the United States Government's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is allowing the commercial sale and use of foods derived from dairy cows that are injected with a genetically- engineered hormone known as recombinant "Bovine Growth Hormone" (rBGH), also known as "Bovine Somatotropin" or BST. There will be no required labeling on these products even though 98% of American consumers favor labeling of rBGH [contaminated] products so that they can avoid buying them. Regularly injecting cows with genetically-engineered Bovine Growth Hormones drastically increases the amounts of milk that the cows produce. Monsanto Corporation, the chemical conglomerate that won the FDA approval to market rBGH to American dairy farmers under the brand name POSILAC, is pushing the recombinant "Bovine Growth Hormone" on the dairy industry as a way to squeeze more milk from every cow, boosting milk production by as much as 25 percent. But rBGH is a disaster for the cows, the small dairy farmers, and the United States taxpayers. And rBGH will likely have HARMFUL EFFECTS on human health [our health and our children's health] and on our environment, as well. Recombinant "Bovine Growth Hormone" is like "crack" for cows. It revs up their systems and forces them to produce a lot more milk -- but it also makes them sick! According to numerous studies, cows injected with rBGH suffer from increased udder infections (mastitis) and from greater stress and disease. rBGH-injected cows also may suffer from severe reproductive problems, digestive disorders, foot and leg ailments, and persistent body sores and lacerations. Sick cows make sick milk. Studies indicate that milk from cows injected with the recombinant "Bovine Growth Hormone" has more saturated fat and less protein than regular milk. The infections that rBGH causes in cows may lead to large amounts of pus in milk. "Pus" is defined as "thick, opaque, usually yellowish-white fluid matter, comprising an exudate which contains leukocytes, tissue debris and microorganisms." Pus is the waste product of bodily infections. -- Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist F O R M O R E I N F O, E - M A I L T O: I N F O @ E F F . O R G O P E N P L A T F O R M O N L I N E R I G H T S V I R T U A L C U L T U R E C R Y P T O ------------------------------ From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 08:02:57 GMT Subject: [#94-2-69] FDA: Thalidomide Help! Could anyone tell me how the FDA (mis-)handled the thalidomide affair? I want to help a libertarian friend argue against the FDA, but I am ignorant of the history surrounding the FDA's involvement. I remember it came up here a while ago where it was pointed out that the deformities only afflicted vitamin deficient mothers, but I forget the bureaucratic details. Perhaps a re-posting from the archives is appropriate? Private email is welcome. -- Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: tribble@netcom.com (E. Dean Tribble) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 00:58:23 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-70] SEMANTICS: Faith At 2:42 PM 1/30/94 +0000, nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu wrote: >Here's a story I saw in _Inside Kung Fu_ about a man who wanted to get >really good at a martial art without messing with all that mysticism >stuff. He decided that the reason martial arts masters could do >extraordinary feats was that they moved within the natural periods >of their bodies considered as systems of pendulems. However, he >discovered that he couldn't move like that without one-pointed >meditation. (I don't know whether he ever became a martial arts >master.) > Incredible tendon development, increase in muscular nerve coordination (so that more of their muscles are available), higher-quality muscle fiber, muscle timing nerve development applied to balance control (baseball pitchers release the ball with more precision than a single neuron firing could provide), etc. *plus* good understanding of how their bodies fit together and move (as systems of pendulums) so that they can move more efficiently, use the strength they have more effectively, etc. Since martial arts are an evolved system, they incorporate knowledge that might be hard to otherwise extract, so shortcuts aren't likely to get you too far. ------------------------------ From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:09:11 GMT Subject: [#94-2-71] SEMANTICS: Faith What's tendon development? I thought that tendons were connective tissue, and that you couldn't do much with them other than stretching. Nancy Lebovitz P.S. Is the list working ok? I've only gotten a very few posts lately. ------------------------------ From: Duncan Frissell Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 12:29:28 -0500 Subject: [#94-2-72] London -- Mondex T >I accidentally deleted the info Stanton forwarded about that London T >digital cash bank. Can someone please let me know if they can send T >it to me in private e-mail? There is also an article on Mondex in the 29 January Economist -- "The Smart Card Cashes In." DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165 ------------------------------ From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 09:43:21 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-73] Cryptographic funnies... The 7 Feb. '94 Doonesbury involves encyphered electronic communications... :-) ------------------------------ From: Bo Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:26:22 -0700 (MST) Subject: [#94-2-74] SOLAR On Fri, 4 Feb 1994, Ray wrote: > Bo writes: > > ...but what if you were able to get say...half of your power requirements > > from your own household solar system...? > > Power consumption on the current system could be reduced by that half... > > > > Hell, even 25% would be a start...! > > At current prices, you'd still be losing money. You could save a lot more > money by making your house energy efficient. Insulating it well. Getting > rid of old light bulbs and replacing them with CF, energy efficient > refrigerator, washer and dryer. Maybe solar heating, etc. You could > probably shave 20-50% off your bill. > > > -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- > -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | politics is the implementation of faith. -- Losing or making money is not the key issue.... By implementing the things _you_ mentioned and the thing _I_ mentioned...Your bill would be somewhat less, you would be less dependant opun the power grid, and you would be doing a very green thing. All things considered, a profitable exchange..... As John said..."Imagine...all the people..." becoming partially solar sufficient..... Bo ------------------------------ From: davisd@auburn.ee.washington.edu Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 11:34:23 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-75] FDA: Thalidomide > Could anyone tell me how the FDA (mis-)handled the thalidomide affair? > I want to help a libertarian friend argue against the FDA, but I am > ignorant of the history surrounding the FDA's involvement. I remember > it came up here a while ago where it was pointed out that the > deformities only afflicted vitamin deficient mothers, but I forget the > bureaucratic details. > > Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk I think it is important in these debates not to try to overpromise results from libertarianism. Under free markets, some people will hurt themselves by using products that are later found to be unsafe, just as under paternalism the government will occasionally ban something which is in fact harmful. It is the overall effects of the competing systems which should be compared. Arguing over specifics when neither side is likely to have a grasp of the facts leads nowhere quickly. Further, you will always be ignorant about certain events. If you concentrate on arguing against every specific concrete, you can always be stymied by events of which you are unaware. Government "solutions" provide the illusion of guaranteed performance, while free markets only claim to increase the likelihood of desired events. Arguing worst case scenarios usually is a loser. Markets don't make guarantees about worst cases. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ From: Stanton McCandlish Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:10:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-2-76] EFF Wants You (to add your voice to the crypto fight!) The Electronic Frontier Foundation needs your help to ensure privacy rights! * DISTRIBUTE WIDELY * Monday, February 7th, 1994 From: Jerry Berman, Executive Director of EFF jberman@eff.org Dear Friends of the Electronic Frontier, I'm writing a personal letter to you because the time has now come for action. On Friday, February 4, 1994, the Administration announced that it plans to proceed on every front to make the Clipper Chip encryption scheme a national standard, and to discourage the development and sale of alternative powerful encryption technologies. If the government succeeds in this effort, the resulting blow to individual freedom and privacy could be immeasurable. As you know, over the last three years, we at EFF have worked to ensure freedom and privacy on the Net. Now I'm writing to let you know about something *you* can do to support freedom and privacy. *Please take a moment to send e-mail to U.S. Rep. Maria Cantwell (cantwell@eff.org) to show your support of H.R. 3627, her bill to liberalize export controls on encryption software.* I believe this bill is critical to empowering ordinary citizens to use strong encryption, as well as to ensuring that the U.S. software industry remains competitive in world markets. Here are some facts about the bill: Rep. Cantwell introduced H.R. 3627 in the House of Representatives on November 22, 1993. H.R. 3627 would amend the Export Control Act to move authority over the export of nonmilitary software with encryption capabilities from the Secretary of State (where the intelligence community traditionally has stalled such exports) to the Secretary of Commerce. The bill would also invalidate the current license requirements for nonmilitary software containing encryption capablities, unless there is substantial evidence that the software will be diverted, modified or re-exported to a military or terroristic end-use. If this bill is passed, it will greatly increase the availability of secure software for ordinary citizens. Currently, software developers do not include strong encryption capabilities in their products, because the State Department refuses to license for export any encryption technology that the NSA can't decipher. Developing two products, one with less secure exportable encryption, would lead to costly duplication of effort, so even software developed for sale in this country doesn't offer maximum security. There is also a legitimate concern that software companies will simply set up branches outside of this country to avoid the export restrictions, costing American jobs. The lack of widespread commercial encryption products means that it will be very easy for the federal government to set its own standard--the Clipper Chip standard. As you may know, the government's Clipper Chip initiative is designed to set an encryption standard where the government holds the keys to our private conversations. Together with the Digital Telephony bill, which is aimed at making our telephone and computer networks "wiretap-friendly," the Clipper Chip marks a dramatic new effort on the part of the government to prevent us from being able to engage in truly private conversations. We've been fighting Clipper Chip and Digital Telephony in the policy arena and will continue to do so. But there's another way to fight those initiatives, and that's to make sure that powerful alternative encryption technologies are in the hands of any citizen who wants to use them. The government hopes that, by pushing the Clipper Chip in every way short of explicitly banning alternative technologies, it can limit your choices for secure communications. Here's what you can do: I urge you to write to Rep. Cantwell today at cantwell@eff.org. In the Subject header of your message, type "I support HR 3627." In the body of your message, express your reasons for supporting the bill. EFF will deliver printouts of all letters to Rep. Cantwell. With a strong showing of support from the Net community, Rep. Cantwell can tell her colleagues on Capitol Hill that encryption is not only an industry concern, but also a grassroots issue. *Again: remember to put "I support HR 3627" in your Subject header.* This is the first step in a larger campaign to counter the efforts of those who would restrict our ability to speak freely and with privacy. Please stay tuned--we'll continue to inform you of things you can do to promote the removal of restrictions on encryption. In the meantime, you can make your voice heard--it's as easy as e-mail. Write to cantwell@eff.org today. Sincerely, Jerry Berman Executive Director, EFF jberman@eff.org P.S. If you want additional information about the Cantwell bill, send e-mail to cantwell-info@eff.org. To join EFF, write membership@eff.org. For introductory info about EFF, send any message to info@eff.org. The text of the Cantwell bill can be found on the Internet with the any of the following URLs (Universal Resource Locaters): ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Policy/Legislation/cantwell.bill http://www.eff.org/ftp/EFF/Policy/Legislation/cantwell.bill gopher://gopher.eff.org/00/EFF/legislation/cantwell.bill It will be available on AOL (keyword EFF) and CIS (go EFFSIG) soon. ------------------------------ From: carlf@media.mit.edu (Carl Feynman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 20:03:06 -0100 Subject: [#94-2-77] SOLAR >On Fri, 4 Feb 1994, Ray wrote: > >> Bo writes: >> > ...but what if you were able to get say...half of your power requirements >> > from your own household solar system...? >> >> At current prices, you'd still be losing money. > >Losing or making money is not the key issue.... >By implementing the things _you_ mentioned and the thing _I_ >mentioned...Your bill would be somewhat less, you would be less dependant >opun the power grid, and you would be doing a very green thing. >All things considered, a profitable exchange..... The fact that solar electricity costs more than grid electricity is fairly good evidence that producing a solar kilojoule consumes more resources than producing a kilojoule the traditional way. In the absence of monopolies, externalities and political interference, the cost of goods refelcts the cost of the resources used to produce them. In this case, there are political interferences in the form of government efforts to raise and lower the price of fossil fuels (both at once! Ain't America great?) and there is a monopoly in the form of your local power company. But I think the political interventions more or less cancel each other out, and the monopoly is regulated until it doesn't have a higher markup than a company in a competitive market. There is also the externality that the power company is allowed to dump some of its emissions into the common atmosphere. But so is the plant that made the solar cells. So I think the price of electricity by traditional and solar methods fairly reflects the cost in resources needed to make them. Thus, changing to a more expensive form of power generation would consume more resources. >As John said..."Imagine...all the people..." becoming partially solar >sufficient..... Imagine... all the people getting poorer... --carlf Internet: carlf@media.mit.edu Home phone: (508)635-9238 Office phone: (617)253-9833 Mail: 1 Gregory Ln., Acton MA 01720 Missile: 42d28'38"N 71d28'49"W +90m Holler: "Yo! Carl Feynman!" ------------------------------ From: Duncan Frissell Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 20:32:59 -0500 Subject: [#94-2-78] High Tide Recedes It's the little things that are nice to notice: Today's WSJ reports (page A16) reports that Canada (and its provinces) will probably cut tobacco taxes because widespread smuggling has rendered Canada's high rates unenforceable. Earlier stories have reported that a very high percentage of cigarettes sold in Canada was "smuggled." (Much of it export tobacco that somehow never left home.) DCF Markets Rule, OK! --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165 ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:23:04 EST Subject: [#94-2-79] Why Is There Stuff ? My favorite reason why there's stuff: What color are Mickey Mouse's ears? Black. Does Mickey Mouse exist? No. So how can he have black ears? It doesn't matter whether he exists. Mickey Mouse is a mouse with black ears. What is it like in this universe? Like this. Does this universe exist? Maybe not. Then how can it be like this? It doesn't matter whether this universe exists. This is a universe that's like this inside. -fnerd quote me - - skip sweet sweetbacks badass skipjack song, jack. 3x, fast. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 19:44:47 -0700 (MST) Subject: [#94-2-80] Support H.R. 3627 >moment to send e-mail to U.S. Rep. Maria Cantwell (cantwell@eff.org) to >show your support of H.R. 3627, her bill to liberalize export controls on >encryption software.* I believe this bill is critical to empowering >ordinary citizens to use strong encryption, as well as to ensuring that >the U.S. software industry remains competitive in world markets. I support H.R. 3627! -Bob- -- Bob Angell | Data Integration (multi-platform) Principal | AWK, C/C++, RDBMS langs, Paradox Management Systems Engineering | Health Systems Engineering Applied Information & Management Systems | Database design/development 1238 Fenway Avenue - SLC, UT 84102-3212 | Simulation/Modeling/Neural Nets bangell@cs.utah.edu; Voice: 801-583-8544 | Freelance writer, major publications IBMLINK:DEV4534, TEAMOS/2 | OS/2 2.x Application Developer [Disclaimer: I don't speak for IBM or the University of Utah!] ------------------------------ From: Oliver Seiler Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:31:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [#94-2-81] High Tide Recedes On Mon, 7 Feb 1994, Duncan Frissell wrote: > It's the little things that are nice to notice: > > Today's WSJ reports (page A16) reports that Canada (and its provinces) > will probably cut tobacco taxes because widespread smuggling has rendered > Canada's high rates unenforceable. Although I don't smoke and I think it's a stupid habit, I feel this is one of the more intelligent moves I've seen my government do in awhile... A funny thing is that the non-smoker's groups are all totally against it, feeling it will increase the smoking rate. Personally I think this is a joke, since as far as I know, smoking rates have been decreasing in general for a long time (whether this was because of high taxes or not is anybody's guess...) I'm sure they would have armed force to get rid of smoking if they could get away with it... > Earlier stories have reported that a very high percentage of cigarettes > sold in Canada was "smuggled." (Much of it export tobacco that somehow > never left home.) I'm amazed at this move, but it makes some sense. The majority of cigarettes are being smuggled by native Indians (or so the RCMP claim). The natives have already said that if any RCMP raids occur we'll have another Oka (for those who don't know what Oka was, then you'll have to look somewhere else, since I wasn't watching the news much when it happened. Something about a clash between the Canadian Army and an indian band in Quebec...) > DCF -Oliver | Oliver Seiler + Erisian Development Group + Amiga Developer + | oseiler@unixg.ubc.ca +-------------Reality by the Slice--------------+ | oseiler@nyx.cs.du.edu | Phone: (604) 683-5364 Fax: (604) 683-6142 | | ollie@BIX.com | POB 3547, MPO, Vancouver, BC, CANADA V6B 3Y6 | ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:07:33 EST Subject: [#94-2-82] PCR (Responding to Tim Starr on PCR) Tim, hope you're not relying on me to have all the answers about PCR. If backed into a corner, I'll punt. I have many of the same questions you do, but I'm trying to answer yours as practice to see how well I really understand it. It seems to me that Bartley's on to something; my attitude is "What have we here," and also what do we not have. Anyway I was saying to Tim- > > Maybe > >you're saying that PCR sets itself up as an authority on *criticism*? > > Bingo! > > >But PCR doesn't propose a fixed set of criteria for criticism. It only > >says that criticizing on the basis of lack of justification is not so > >great. So it doesn't logically claim to be the be-all-end-all of > >criticism. > > Claiming to be the be-all and end-all is irrelevant, unless that's how > you make your distinction between provisional ("good") authorities and > non-provisional ("bad") ones. I think that's close to it. PCR doesn't claim to be or know or name a complete foundation or complete set of foundations for knowlege. It offers some criteria, but it doesn't say the set is complete. I think naming a set and calling it complete is the big PCR sin. I'm not sure if it defines rationality completely in terms of holding- open-to-criticism, but in any case it doesn't completely define criticism, so this definition of rationality doesn't put a limit on the foundations of knowlege. The quote above was from near the end of this letter, now from near the top... > >One problem with justification"ism" is all the different belief > >systems where people have decided on the one true source of all truth... > >and then had to move it with great upheaval...then again... General > >paradigm stickiness. > > This problem appears to be monism rather than foundationalism, that is, the > notion that's there only one ground for truth, rather than that truth must > be grounded in something. To paraphrase Rand on concepts, an alternative > view which would avoid this problem would be to say that beliefs must have > some ground in order to be true, but it may be "any" ground, out of a set > of possible options, such as perception, axioms, etc. I think if you name everything that's supposed to be in the set, PCR disapproves. The set becomes the fixed ground. I'm not sure why it's important to find the ground, or say that there is one, here. > Epistemological foundations like sensory evidence and axioms provide > guides to selecting among the many possible alternatives available to us when > trying to figure out what to believe - and what not to. Yet PCR seems bent > on attacking these. I think it's attacking a too-holy attitude towards them. > For example, one reason I don't believe that there are evil demons forcing me > to type this is that I have no evidence for doing so. In this particular example, you could criticize based on uselessness, something Bartley seems to approve of (I think I do, too). But maybe the bigger question is what to do about the endless cloud of possible ideas. How are you supposed to choose among them? I think PCR doesn't recommend adopting any (except itself!). But I think the assumption is that you already have beliefs about good sources of information, and from these sources and your trust in them you get more beliefs. So as long as you "hold-open-to-criticism" both the trees and their fruits, you're okay. (Pancritically correct?) > Actually, what I see happening as this discussion goes on is that we seem to > be reconciling with each other's views; PCR doesn't seem to be making as > extreme claims as I thought it did, which is good. Maybe we can figure out what, if anything, is unique and/or useful about it. > >From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) > >Tim Starr: > >> ...an axiom is a proposition > >> that can't be denied without being presupposed ... > >Sounds ... like Rand... My problem (if any) with this arg is that it's based on further statements or assumptions about what the other arguer is saying, what's implicit in it, what the nature of argument is, etc. If the other accepts this kind of argument, then you both agree, but maybe you're just both wrong in your deeper assumptions. This is no problem (very PCR-like), until you say that *this* kind of agreed-upon statement is a *special* kind of statement. (It's also a problem if you make a bad-faith argument that doesn't take the other's criticism as seriously as they do...but we wouldn't do that...) In PCR terms, turning a criticism's basis on itself is a useful defensive move, but defending a proposition that way doesn't make the proposition special. I think Max said- > >> >PCR tells us... > >> >...that we can never know for certain whether A is true Tim cleared up that he finds this particular statement contradictory. I would add, look at the word "never" there. But I think the contradiction goes away if you simply take PCR at it's word. "I can't be certain, but I believe," is implicit, and taken with that, what Max says PCR says is not contradictory. But I think we're getting into the issue of what meaning we want to give "certain," which is interesting but not necessarily central here. > What's a provisional belief? Hmm. Something I believe but don't claim I'll necessarily always believe? > >> A possible source of confusion here may be the equation of "absolute > >> certainty" with what Rand called "intrinsicist" and Popper called "manifest" > >> theories of truth. > > Intrinsic theories of truth hold that some things are true no matter what the > context or consequences. I don't see the problem with this one. > Manifest theories of truth hold that some truths are > so obvious that no competent knower could fail to accept them without choosing > not to. If "Absolute certainty" is intended to mean one of those, then we > need another term to describe the view that some things are true in all > possible contexts, but need to be grasped through a process of discovery. I think both Bartley and I are close to this one, although I'm not sure PCR commits to it. But I think for PCR you have to add that although you may have discovered a truth, you can never be sure you have, and you should never completely close off the possibility of changing your mind. I like the question of just how "open" you should be here, I think Robin asked it (I associate Robin with Bayes, anyway). Probably PCR says you should never deny the possibility of being wrong *in principle*, but I'm not sure what's so great about that. Maybe just the simple fact that people have made such denials-in-principle and gotten into trouble. It's kind of like Isadora Duncan wearing...^Z [1]+ Stopped mush fnerdish$ grep extrav /usr/dict/words extravagant extravaganza fnerdish$ fg ...extravagantly long scarves around her neck when she went out for a ride... > Why isn't PCR's substitution of criticism for justification simply another > kind of justification? And it's all well and good for PCR to simply > assert justification less important than other kinds of criticisms, but > that doesn't give us any reason to believe this claim. > > >I think some of us could come up with reasons why we find PCR useful/ > >plausible (it's not exactly a matter of truth since it's prescriptive). > > [John Stuart Mill on usefulness and truth of opinions.] I think Bartley could be said to justify PCR on the basis of utility. At least he defends it against charges that it doesn't let you do useful things that justification does, and it avoids, er, practical problems with naming a fixed basis, or basis-set, for belief. But he doesn't (as Mill almost does) say that usefulness is *the* justification for truth... > >I think the PCR authority is what-you-happen-to-believe-now. Or what-you- > >still-believe-*now*. But not necessarily what you believed in the past. > > But the fundamental question is: what will we believe in the future? This > is because we don't start out with any beliefs. This is an issue I keep not quite getting you on. I keep saying that people *do* start out with beliefs and ways that they come to believe more things, at least they have them before they get to the point of discussing epistemology. I don't see what need you're getting at. > >I'm not sure your giving enough attention to the difference between an > >authority that demands justification ("only these ideas are good") and one > >that criticizes in other ways ("these ideas, at least, bad"). > > I don't see the difference. One seems equivalent to the other, with the > only difference being a trivial one: the former focuses on the good, the > latter on the bad... It's in whether the "good" set is closed or left open. In fact PCR leaves both sets open. If it didn't (if it closed the set of valid bases for criticism) I don't think it would be contradictory, but it would probably be wrong. > >I think PCR does say a little more than that authority is polycentric. > >It says that a whole *class* of authorities are bad, > > A class to which it seems to belong. I think we've talked about this above. > > but then there are > >whole other classes that are, well, probably many of them are okay but > >keep an eye out. > > I quite agree, but this is hardly original: > [Mill on openness to criticism and others' ideas.] I think it's criticizing "justificationism," rather than just promoting criticism, that's unique. Or at least, doing both at the same time. > >>PCR doesn't purport to be a theory of everything relevant to knowledge. > > > >Why is the distinction important [I mean, I believe it is, but why]? > > Because rationality is only part of epistemology. This only rephrases the question! But it's a good issue. PCR says something about the relationship of rationality to epistemology, putting the rest of epistemology one-down: First be PCRational, and then you can have theories about where knowledge comes from. That a belief isn't justified in terms of a theory of knowledge isn't a valid criticism. And if a theory of knowledge says it's complete, don't believe it. Maybe the bottom line is that claims of completeness (or methods that imply completeness) are useless and cause problems. -fnerd quote me - - skip sweet sweetbacks badass skipjack song, jack. 3x, fast. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 23:14:48 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-83] DIET: BGH and disease I recently got a posting about it now being legal to inject cows with some kind of genetically-engineered Bovine Growth Hormone to get them to give more milk. The problem was that the cows also get more infections and they show up in the milk. It was recommended that noone consume any dairy products from cows that may have been so injected. Besides that it doesn't seem very nice to the cows (inconsistent of me -- I'll deal with that separately), it did seem like it might be a health risk, but then it occurred to me that most milk in this country is pasteurized, and so labeled. Am I misled about pasteurization, or doesn't it kill all the germs in the milk whether the cow is sick or not? I assume that cows sometimes got sick before Bovine Growth Hormone, and got plenty of milk pumped out of them before the farmers figured it out and gave them antibiotics (which would also end up in the milk, unless the cow was taken offline until she was healthy, which seems unlikely to me). Which makes me wonder -- does the growth hormone get into the milk, too? Would it do the same things to humans that it does to cows, or nothing at all? I don't want to get into a nutrition war -- I know that there are extropian vegans who would avoid milk in any case -- but simply comparing milk before and milk now, is there or isn't there cause for greater alarm? Thanks, Kennita Kennita Watson | To keep an ever-open door is wisdom's true advancer; kwatson@netcom.com | So they are fools who don't ask more HEx KNNTA | Than ten wise men can answer. -- Piet Hein, _Grooks 2_ ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #38 ********************************