LuckyNumber23

In all fairness one can say that her novels have no "deeper" meaning. Everything is the way it is. The protagonists are just who they appear they are. They are like puppets serving a role, either as villains or as heros. There is no complexity whatsoever. Compare that to Hugo who was also a romantic writer and whom Rand admired and you will see the difference.

Then you have a hard time explaining the rampant obesity.

This is not how insurances work. A premium is based on your behaviour as well as those of others. By doing so you can minimalize risks. I did not suggest boycotting it. Also interesting to note, that you now see the externalities of a product. One of the effects of "normal" Murrican diet are higher costs in medical treatment due to obesity, diabetes, and several related health issues.

Externalities are not priced in the cost. Important to keep that in mind. There may be positive or negative externalities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality The negative of eating too many Big Macs would be that you would have to pay higher premiums in insurance when a lot of people went on the McDonalds diet.

On a related note. In a recent show Stef mentions the methodological dualism and that he agrees with Mises' premise. However, in the Bomb in the Brain series Stef uses findings from science to validate his position. Isn't that a breach of this dualism?

I don't support theft to answer your question.

You don't support theft, but you benefit from the theft, by using a medium that came into existence bc of the theft. Hence my question.

Where do you draw the boundaries? Is anyone using public services or infrastructure a thief?

Teabagger, what constitutes support in your eyes?

Most pharmaceutical companies spend more money on ads than on research. The problem is that doing basic research won't pay off in the near future, hence companies outsourced it to the gubmint. I am under the impression that Stef assumes that there can still be amateurish scientists like in the 18th century. In reality you need labs with tons of stuff and a lot of workers simply to verify experiments. In addition to that you can point at Austrian economics who should know better than scientists that they are paid with stolen money. The state "paid" for their "hobbies" as well. Where would be without von Mises or Rothbard?

I think that Rand's novels are pulp. The characters are one-dimensional and the storylines are driven by unrealistic motives. That being said, I think that Rand's philosophy deserves some attention.http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/01/ep78-ayn-rand/A friend told me that he felt bad about my snide remark. I have to agree. It was not very well thought through.

Not as bad as Rand's novels though.

The 19th century just called and wanted its Ether back. This was exactly Einstein's point. It depends on the position relative to the event. Scientific theory is not about testing reality, it is about the demarkation between science and bullshit. See Popper's Conjectures and Refutation for a concise argument.

I think this quote alludes to the square of opposition which came up I believe in the Medieval Ages. In it, Positive and Negative Quantifiers are depicted in a square, and you can instantly see the relations: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/I refer to Aristotle's logic as syllogistic logic. While it is by some considered to be classical, it has some serious flaws, as can be seen in the article: By classical logic I mean any system of reasoning that works from axioms, that has two truthvalues, and wherein the truthvalue of a statement can be determined by looking at the combination of parts of the statement. While this does include syllogistical logic I think nowadays most people would attribute this term to predicate logic or propositional logic.Modern logic has either many truth values (think of fuzzy logic) or it works with probabilities (modal logic). It includes the deontologic logic as well where the validity of ethical statements can be checked, especially the claim of universal applicability.

Sure, when it comes to directions and geography, opposition is properly defined. For most other actions this is not the case, hence negation is in these case not necessarily the opposition. I went to the opposition of North is different from I did not go North. Not going North includes going West, East, or South. Opposition is a special case of negation when it is sufficiently defined and can be quantified.

In classical logic there are only quantifiers (Every and it Exists) and relations (and, or, implication, equality, and negation). This is all that is to it (plus the truth values oc). The negation is not the opposite (only in some cases). Have a look at these statements:- I did not go to the movies. I went to the supermarket.- I did not go to the movies. I had an appointment with the dentist.- I did not go to the movies. I took a ride with my bike. All of these sentences are true. Lets now examine this example:Either I went to the movies or I did not. I assume you would conclude that going to the movies is the opposite of not going to the movies. However, not going to the movies includes the statesments, plus many others. So to stay in UPB's terminology you would not have one opposite, diametrically opposed, but a lot of them.

Debating with a Spambot seems to be futile

I think OP is right. Here is why. In classical logic any statement is true or false.Example: Today's lottery numbers are 1, 2, 3.When the numbers are correct, the statement is true.When the statement is false, any of these statements can be true:The lottery numbers are: 1, 2, 41, 2, 51, 2, 6...4, 5, 9Since there is no opposite in classical logic, any of these results can be valid. How would you chose the opposite? What is the opposite of 1, 2, 3?In modal logic there is no such thing as opposite as well, just in case you try to come up with a deontological argument for UPB. The problem is too, that classical logic (true / false) and modal logic (good / bad) are lumped together. Btw, this is somewhat similar to the is / ought dichotomy.