Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: FIRST order?
Message-ID: <DBq20x.BJH@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <DBMDDG.51E@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3u1gab$f9f@saba.info.ucla.edu> <DBo4L9.1ws@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3u3ul0$mnr@saba.info.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 19:55:45 GMT
Lines: 95
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:31533 comp.ai.philosophy:30199 sci.logic:12413 sci.cognitive:8311

In article <3u3ul0$mnr@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
Michael Zeleny <zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>Michael Zeleny <zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>>>Michael Zeleny <zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>................
>>>>>The trouble with your proposed resolution is that I do not regard your
>>>>>stance as merely unacceptable, but as both factually and morally wrong.
>                                                             ^^^^^^^
>>>>Says who?
>
>>>It makes no difference who says it, unless you are a moral relativist,
>>>in which case it still makes no difference.
>
>>I can see two possible interpretations of your reply:
>
>Your grasp of interpretive possibility is severely impoverished.
>
Empty talk. Can you provide any substance?

>>1. You think that people should take note of your moral judgements (arrogance 
>>   at best since private moral preferences are not under discussion here).
>>2. You are ducking the question since you realized that the statement above
>>   made you look silly.
>>Did I miss something? (actually it may very well be 1+2).
>
>I think that people should take note of correct moral judgements
                                         ^^^^^^^
>regardless of their provenance.  When you are apprised that your

I cannot believe that you are this thick, you must be pretending. 
However, I'll play along and explain clearly: I am asking what is your
criterion if a given moral judgment is correct or not, got it?

>calculation is wrong, your first reaction should be to check its
>correctness, rather than inquire "Says who?"  The same is true of
>moral judgment.
>
If I was confident of my calculations, whether I took the trouble to recheck 
my calculations would depend on who put them in doubt.
Moral judgments are not calculations, they are usually based on a code
which people take as given. I am trying to find out what code you are using
(I do not see anything "morally wrong" in David Langley's stance).

>>So do you have guts to give a straight reply to the question? (You know, 
>>like "me", "Pope", "Ayatollah X", "Holy Script Y", etc.). You are not 
>>ashamed and/or uncertain of the source of your moral judgements, are you? 
>
>You have an interesting propensity for projecting a deeply seated
>feeling of personal inadequacy.  If you are concerned with locating
>its source, I recommend rational introspection, the same faculty that
>readily demonstrates moral inadequacy of gainsaying the possibility of
>communication.
>
Obviously your reply is an example of a projection. I have merely given
few examples so that you could grasp what I am asking about.
Instead discussing my internal feelings, why don't you just answer? Lack
of courage to spell it out certainly is a sign of a deep seated feeling of
personal inadequacy. 
What concerns a possibility of communication, you are probably right -
it is impossible to communicate with someone who is unwilling to share 
basis of his/her beliefs with others (or perhaps even to examine him/herself 
what is a source of these beliefs).

>>If you do not want other people to ask you about it, don't preach to them 
>>what is moral and/or what is not.

>
>I welcome all questions, no matter how vacuous or hostile.
>
If your "replies" above are examples of how you welcome questions, it is 
a waste of time to ask you any.
In another posting (a reply to Aaron Sloman) you wrote:

>...........................There must exist a core
>of scientific and moral knowledge, which should be held immune against
>revision based on empirical findings.

If you hold these sort of convictions, then there is not much to discuss. Just
tell us who is the prophet whose view of scientific and moral knowledge
is the "correct one". You seem to behave like you think that have find this 
knowledge.  Are you the ONE?
(BTW, you call Aaron Sloman 'dogmatic' - perhaps you should consult your
dictionary).

Andrzej
                 
>mikhail zeleny@math.ucla.edu                                  tread
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
