I'm gonna repeat this for emphasis.

Both Danny and I have mentioned problems in the philosophy of science (theory-ladenness of observation, underdetermination of theories by evidence, incommensurability, and so on). From your answers I gather you were not aware of such problems. Neither is Stef.

But when Stef talks about the scientific method, about reason and evidence, about empiricism and so on, it sounds so logical, so natural and so true. it is very easy to think 'Of course this is true, this is the method'.

You may even think 'People who disagree with this must have psychological problems' and this is perhaps made easier because many people who 'disagree' with 'the scientific method' do in fact do so for poor, superstitious or whatever reasons.

But that in itself doesn't mean that there are also serious critics of the proto-positivist view Stefan has of science who have good arguments for their view, argumens Stefan has not even heard of.

Just think about it, science and 'the scientific method' play such an important role in Stef's ideas, and he sounds so convincing and natural when he talks about it, but he is completely unaware of the serious and rather fatal arguments that have been put forward (and have pretty much been accepted) against a view like his. that is not to say that it is impossible to overcome these arguments but Stefan is not even aware of them, and philosophers of science have failed to solve the problems despite Herculian efforts.

Again, Stefan sounds so convincing when talking about science and the scientific method, and it's so easy and natural to go along and accept his views and dismiss critics, but his views have in fact been thoroughly refuted (or at the very least severely attacked) for a long time, and any undergrad philosophy student who has taken a philosophy of science course knows this. But Stefan and other FDR'ers are just unaware of this and continue to proclaim their views as the truth, and dismiss citics.

Now philosophy of science may not be the most essential topic here, but if it can happen in such a central topic for Stefan's beliefs, could not the very same thing be the case with his views on e.g. psychology family relationships: he sounds so convincing and natural and right when he talks about the ideas, when he applies them in conversations and so on, and it is natural to dismiss critics as people who just can't accept these truths (about themselves for example) and this is made easier by the fact that this likely indeed is the case for some critics, but this leaves completely open the possiblity that there are in fact very good arguments against Stefan's views and methods here, that in fields such as psychology, psychiatry and so on these types of views, Stef's type of method in conversations, have been discussed and that good arguments have been put forward against them. Perhaps the views of the psychologists and psychiatrists who have listened to podcasts, have commented on Stefan's mehod therein, have visited the boards and so on, are then similar to philosophers of science who criticise Stefan's views on science. that need not be the case, but it sure is possible.

But perhaps Stefan or other FDR'ers simply don't know about these, and are tempte to dismiss critics by saying 'they're corrupt' or 'they just can't handle the truth'

If this can happen in the case of such a central concept for Stefan, namely science, then that may be reason to tread more carefully in other key topics and aproaches as well...


to be sure, the above is in itself not intended as an argument against Stefan's views on e.g. psychology, the family, relationships or his method in conversations (if it were an argument, it would be an argument from possiblity/argument from authority), but I make the comparison with philosophy of science to suggest that the fact that Stefan's views sound so logical and natural and true, and that many of the critics in fact don';t have good arguments and may act as they out of a lack of integrity, honesty and so on, does not mean that his views cannot be very wrong and that the errors of this type of approach or theory have already been discussed by experts in the field. You may say 'There he is with the experts again' but the philosophy of science example shows that at least sometimes this applies

Phlogiston, fair enough I think. I certainly would agree there may be an under-representation of pro-FDR views here and that this is possibly caused partly by the effective blockade that Stef put between the two sites.

However, the blockade is at least partially understandable given the extreme initial reactions of some people towards deFOOing, his controversial philosophy and bans, and the fact that most of those people found a largely supportive home at LiMi. If they were more balanced from the get go, Stef might have not escalated things to the point that he did.

I find FDR more valuable overall than LiMi when it comes to issues that truly help advance my personal growth and partially because a lot of people there understand far better my voluntaryist beliefs and thus allow me to instead focus on issues that build on such voluntaryism.

On LiMi, however, I find myself having to defend my voluntaryism to begin with before I can even begin to build further on it. It may be valuable to try and convince some people of voluntaryism, but if I have to do this at the expense of my membership at FDR, than no thanks. I can find other venues. I know.. this probably makes you guys feel done wrongly. If Stef didn't do what he did I might decide to participate in both communities equally, but now I'm forced to choose (unless he really bans me in which case... I think I'll participate in neither). But he didn't exactly do that without any sort of provocation whatsoever.

Hello again all,

I would like to insert an observation at this point that I feel is a relevant aside. It is intriguing to me that you are freely able to come to limi and express your opinions, Memeverse, and are debated with such courtesy and respect. As a matter of fact, it has been an enjoyable and informative experience watching the debate as it has evolved. I appreciate that you have made your views known here.

I find it interesting that when I was a member at FDR, in spite of RTR, UPB, instructional podcasts, and all of the rules of "politeness", most discussions such as this (where people were in obvious disagreement) would quickly dissolve into an all out verbal brawl of embarrassing proportions. FDR is no longer a place where freedom of expression exists to this degree.

Thank you Conrad for providing a free environment where all can express themselves without fear of recrimination. It is fascinating to see freedom of expression handled respectfully, with everyone's dignity remaining intact.

Conrad, replying to a response prior to your last one two last ones, I think those are fair points, though in a nutshell by the end of it, it sort of sounds like "right back atcha".

As I said in another thread, only the dishonest one can know for sure that he is dishonest (and same for the honest one). Introspection helps dig that up. Who among us is the one... well.. we spilled our beans enough, the points are expressed to each other. Now let everyone be their own judge. I am happy to leave it at that.

Regarding your last reply prior to last one, yes it's certainly possible that the critics have successfully refuted Stef's views, but before conceding to any of these rebuttals I have to read and consider them, and I think I will.. with all this emphasis on that book, "Philosophy of Science", you made me quite curious.

The thing is, however, that the worst consequences that ever happened of Stef's views and their application simply do not warrant the kinds of negative reactions we have seen, such as those of Barbara Weed and some other mothers and even those of some of you who have been banned. This is what I just cannot understand. The worst consequences of Stef's "teachings" were the following:

1. Few people became convinced some current relationships are bad for them and decided to terminate them, proceeding to build those they feel are better ones. A lot more people actually strengthened their existing relationships though!

2. Some people were banned for what they call "mere disagreement" and Stef calls "abuse and disruption". Some were banned for using the board to promote LiMi.

3. This is barely a consequence, but since it's so loudly attacked as "manipulation" I am including it. A lot of people are easily persuaded by Stef due to his articulation and persuasion skills.

Now let's see the negative reactions to these.

1. Those with whom relationships were terminated called Stef a cult which destroys families and those who terminated those relationships as weak minded who fell pray to extremely dangerous indoctrination. Note the obvious hyperbole here given the actual consequence defined above.

2. Some of those who have been banned used the bannings to further reinforce the cult claim and motivate their anti-FDR efforts. They claimed the bannings as evidence that Stef isn't at all open to criticism despite the fact that bannings constitute a minority of cases and that he did on many occasions address criticisms and participate in discussions which involve them. Again, hyperbolic. In internet culture bannings are seen as some sort of a totalitarian stick which completely misses the remaining fact that they CAN be completely appropriate as site owners means of steering the site (his property) in a direction which he may honestly feel is best. In other words, bannings aren't necessarily made out of malice or dissent crushing that some would quickly ascribe to it.

3. If a person honestly believes what he says and advice he provides and at that happens to be articulate and persuasive and thus uses this persuasion ability to convince people of these genuinely held ideas, is that manipulation? Many on this board apparently think so. I don't, simply because I don't think manipulation as malice can happen without dishonesty. You simply can't expect a person NOT to express his strongly held opinions and try to convince people of them as best as they can. Again, the manipulation accusation appears hyperbolic. You cannot with certainty claim that Stef is dishonest, and if he isn't, then all that he said and the way he said it was precisely what one should would expect from anyone, including those who make the manipulation claims.

This hyperbolic response is what causes my suspicions of dishonesty. I realize that Stef may be wrong. I realize that you may all be honest yourselves, but I also cannot help but realize that there is extreme disparagement between the consequences of his actions and the extremeness of negative characterization of them.

So my decision is to explore the Philosophy of Liberty book you suggested, but remain on FDR and proceed with internalization with best ideas I know SO FAR, while having my eyes open for improvements. I trust myself more than I trust Stef and certainly more than I trust you.

EDIT: Reply to your last reply: fair enough. Btw, one other thing I wanted to mention is Occams Razor since you referred to the possibility that ideas commonly adopted at FDR are too simple with respect to the problems you refer to. When you're in doubt, a simpler answer is a more likely one. We'll see how much in doubt I'll be when I read the book you recommended.

Thank you

Memeverse, when I talked about you being insulting, I was referring to you saying:

Quote:

This realization seems to confirm my suspicions because if there actually isn't much of substance about Stef that could cause so much of the outcry, the only ones left are those who are causing the outcry to begin with... so what is it? Couldn't it be that the those who say that the supposed victims simply have trouble facing some truths about themselves and therefore resort to projecting their issues to others, are in fact quite right? I suspect you wont like or accept that assertion, but that wont really dissuade me from considering or adopting it.

But it’s not really a big deal; I just wanted to let you know how I felt. I’d think that as someone who places so much emphasis on Stefan’s views regarding relationships, you’d understand why it’s not true that “There’s no need for this.” Ultimately, though, it’s sort of a minor issue, so I won’t press it.

The bigger issue arises from the idea that you’ve apparently separated the idea that something is immoral from any notion of desirability. So, then, it’s through appeal to objective facts about the world – apparently objectively “morally significant” facts – that we determine whether or not something is immoral. In other words, you’re a moral realist.

The first question that you would need to answer as a moral realist is what makes something a morally significant fact, and how we know. That is, what is it that makes something moral and something else immoral? You have provided several clues as to your view so far:

Quote:

there is a logical and empirically backed principle that makes it truly universal, and that is in reference to human existence as human being dependent on lack of coercion (coercion is dehumanizing).

Quote:

From my reasoning above regarding coercion, all I would say a human "deserves" is to not be coerced, but saying that they deserve to not be coerced is sort of like saying that they deserve to be the human beings which they naturally are. Yeah, you deserve to be you and I deserve to be me and nobody has a right to make us be something else (by thinking/feeling and acting against our will / consent).

Quote:

Namely I claimed that one cannot BE fully human if coerced, that his humanity, his most basic type of existence, is violated. This is a crucial determinator. One does not lose his humanity if someone insults him or does something that one merely feels extreme distaste towards. One loses his humanity when he loses his ability to act volitionally without fearing for loss of himself, his life, liberty (volitional action) and property (results of such action).

Quote:

Does an act make one less of what he is? Does it grow a person in a way that forcefully stomps on another person's ability to be what he is or grow himself? Does your boat sink mine? Are you doing something that forcefully denies me the freedom to do the same thing (if this is the case, it is by definition coercive and thus immoral and thus cannot be morally done by either of the person's involved).

There are others, particularly relating to your beehive example, but I think these will be more than enough for our purposes here. If I understand correctly, your moral theory has to do with the recognition of the following “morally significant” facts (these are not intended to be an argument, and you might want to change the phrasing):

1) Some actions result in the dehumanization of others.
2) Some actions, through the use of force, make it impossible for others to perform the same action.

I would agree that these facts seem morally relevant, but if your theory is to be based on objective facts about existence, it seems to me like you’ll need to be a little more specific. Accordingly, I think it will be helpful to get clarification on each of these points in turn.

Two questions about (1):

First, what does it mean to be human? Do humans have an objective “essence”? How do you know?

Second, presumably you don’t believe that anything with an essence has moral standing. Melting sand to make glass makes it so that the sand is no longer what it was, in some sense, but this doesn’t seem wrong. Even some living things, like grass, have natures of their own so that it makes sense to talk about destroying them and robbing them of their grasshood, but this also seems okay – surely I am not made immoral. Why, then, is it objectively immoral to deprive a human of its humanity, but not objectively immoral to deprive sand of its sandhood or grass of its grasshood?

Two questions about (2):

The institution of private property involves the enclosure of a specific piece of land from the commons, and the defense of that enclosure with force. Someone who claims something as property accordingly uses force or the threat of force to make it impossible for others to perform certain actions involving the piece of property which he himself claims the right to do. That is, if I claim a field for my own and start planting crops, and then I (or others, like policemen) forcefully exclude others from planting crops on my field, then it seems like I have gone astray of (2). But yet you’re a libertarian, and presumably advocate institutions of private property. If private property is not immoral, then (2) cannot be a source of moral significance.

There are plenty of things that we can do to deprive others of the opportunity for the same action which does not involve any force. If I’m dating Melinda, then you can’t date her at the same time. If I ate a piece of chicken, then you can’t eat it either. These sorts of things aren’t morally wrong. So then it would need to be the element of forcefulness that makes (2) problematic. Does (2) then collapse into (1)? Or is there another reason besides dehumanization that makes (2) worrisome?

Ya know what? Memeverse is causing a lot of dissent and could possibly damage our reputation as a 'hate site' maybe we should ban him/her and delete everything they have ever posted.



(jk, no fdr tactics here)

Okay, so in the interest of not derailing this conversation, I’m going to avoid getting into property theory since you agreed that (2) should be collapsed into (1). Accordingly, I’ll address only your first two points here.

The first problem that jumps out with your identification of “volition” as the essence of humanity is that volition isn’t uniquely human. Plenty of animals weigh alternatives and make decisions, and they are not humans. But second, and more important, is that coercion doesn’t necessarily make it so that people lose their volition. If I placed an explosive collar around your neck and said, “If you move, the collar will detonate and you will die,” surely that would count as coercion, right? But the choice of what to do would still be yours. Perhaps the outcomes available to you would be changed or constrained, but that doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t be the one choosing.

All of this can be avoided rather easily, though, by shifting focus away from “volition” itself (which has only to do with the act of making choices and doesn’t seem like it would be a very good grounding point for morality) and onto people’s ability to plan and live their lives in accordance with their own desires and goals. According to this view, it wouldn’t simply be that the act of choosing is important, but rather that one’s choices be allowed to track one’s own plans and not be constrained by others’ actions. In this connection, Hayek writes:

Quote:

By "coercion" we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another. Except in the sense of choosing the lesser evil in a situation forced on him by another, he is unable either to use his own intelligence or knowledge or to follow his own aims or beliefs. Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another.

Before moving on, I should ask you whether you think that this is a fair reinterpretation of what you intended. Under this view, what you would be saying is that it is objectively true that humans have the ability to plan their own lives and to carry out their plans, and that coercion disrupts this ability. To the extent that we can say (plausibly, I think) that it is of moral importance that people be able to lead their own lives according to their own plans, and that to deprive them of this ability would be (at least generally – allowing for exceptions) to treat them as if they were somehow less than human, it would be unreasonable for us to think anything but that coercion is (again, at least generally) morally wrong. Is this more or less what you had in mind?