From[Bill Williams 14 July 2004 7:20 PM CST]
[From Bill Powers (2004.07.13.1604 MDT)]
Bruce Nevin (2004.07.13 14:24 EDT)
I can see that if I were to prevail, you would lose something of great value that concerns >your chosen profession, or the category of social science to which it belongs: the idea >that it stands above all other scientific endeavors in its ability to determine what is going >on in Real Reality.
Facinating that Bill Powers sums up his argument that "We are all alone...." with a conclusion that Bill Powers "can see" that Bruce Nevin's control variable is an utterly mistaken attempt to errect an "idea that stands above all other scientiific endeavors."
Not that this is what Bruce Nevin ever said, but it is plain to Bill Powers that this is what is in Bruce Nevin's head.
Burce Nevin, according to Bill Powers is attempting to "determine what is going on in Real Reality." I perceive this as an obvious inconsisency that is inconsistent with the bulk of Bill Powers' PCT sophistology.
> I do not think you will get much agreement on this except from other social scientists > who would also enjoy thinking that they had a special place among scientists.
The implict and sometimes explicit _subtext_ in Bill Powers' assertion here is that, of course, social theorists are intellectually deficient. The don't understand-- that we are all alone in this. But, then what is the point of arguing with a solipcist?
Bill Williams
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0715.0652)]
Bill Williams 14 July 2004 7:20 PM CST
The implict and sometimes explicit _subtext_ in Bill Powers' assertion here is that, of course, social theorists are intellectually deficient. The don't understand-- that we are all alone in this. But, then what is the point of arguing with a solipcist?
You have no doubt noted how we solipsists are sticking together on this.
Bruce gregory
Certainty has more appeal than truth.
From[Bill Williams 15 July 2004 6:00 PM CST]
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0715.0652)]
>>Bill Williams 14 July 2004 7:20 PM CST
>>The implict and sometimes explicit _subtext_ in Bill Powers' assertion here >>is that, of course, social theorists are intellectually deficient. The don't >>understand-- that we are all alone in this. But, then what is the point of >>arguing with a solipcist?
You have no doubt noted how we solipsists are sticking together on this.
Sure. And, it would have puzzled me, if that is you hadn't pointed out how the Chicago
School economists are about the most conformist tribe of individualists in existence.
Bill Williams
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0715.1913)]
Bill Williams 15 July 2004 6:00 PM CST
Sure. And, it would have puzzled me, if that is you hadn't pointed out how the Chicago
School economists are about the most conformist tribe of individualists in existence.
I always say, the more solipsists the merrier.
Bruce Gregory
Certainty has more appeal than truth.
From[Bill Williams 15 July 2005 7:00 PM CST ]
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0715.1913)]
>>Bill Williams 15 July 2004 6:00 PM CST
>>Sure. And, it would have puzzled me, if that is you hadn't pointed out how >>the Chicago School economists are about the most conformist tribe of >>individualists in existence.
I always say, the more solipsists the merrier.
I would agree. Empirically I think it is true that solipsists are happiest when they are part of a big crowd. Maybe that is why PCT tribe of solipsists are so cranky.
Bill Williams