Tuesday, August 21, 2007
8 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Congrats, Larry.
ReplyDeleteCongrats. As atheists go, you do very possibly deserve this. ;-)
ReplyDeleteComing from a Christian, that's high praise indeed. ;-)
ReplyDeleteCongratulations and thanks for the nomination. Somebody gave me one a while ago but I never put it up. The whole tagging thing...brings back grade school memories better left buried. :)
ReplyDeleteWhether you put it up or not, you definitely deserve the high esteem in which I hold your work.
ReplyDeleteDon't feel guilty! Why on Earth do you feel guilty?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the nomination. I'll be posting later today.
(Hey, did you ever respond to my comment about the is-to-ought problem? If you did, I can't find it.)
I felt guilty because you deserve the award, it was in my power to give it to you, and I didn't do so. I completely assuaged my guilt, however, by actually giving you the award. Like the Sacred Slut, whether you accept or not it's an indication of the esteem in which I hold your own work.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to search comments; I'm not sure where you posted your question, so I'll try and reconstruct it, and my answer, from memory.
I have concluded that the is-ought dichotomy is fundamental: There is no reconciling the two. We must accept that what we choose (ought) is unrelated in a fundamental way to truth (is). "Is" can tell us what our choices are, and tell us the likely or plausible consequences of our choices, but because both choices are, in a sense, "true", cannot tell us how to choose; truth cannot tell us which is better. (In much the same sense, "ought" cannot dictate "is": The truth does not care about our preferences.)
I'm thinking about writing an essay on the topic in the near future.
Wow. I really appreciate it. I finally have time to get a post up that's half decent, and now you've removed the instructions! I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to tags. I don't know how this whole thing works. E-mail me perhaps?
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with your conclusions on the whole is-ought thing. I've come to the same conclusion myself, but that may change. I have no idea.