I would think that construction of the test would be guided by reason, to resolve uncertainty as to whether the hypothesis is true. The performance of the test would be based upon how the real world works. How are you defining faith in this particular instance?

I'd be curious to know what redefinitions you think I am engaging in. Again, I don't dispute the Law of Identity. I merely built onto that the reality that Time exists and thus that Identity is in flux - it is not a constant. This being the case, the transition of past Identity to future Identity is part of Reality. To deny that this transition exists is to deny the ability of Man to acquire knowledge and alter one's behavior accordingly.

As to value, I welcome your view on the matter as a check on my premises. If value is not a comparison against an independent standard, what is it?

That's just a silly analysis of Rand's quote.

james; It seems that what you think of as reason/faith is opposite to most definitions I can find and certainly, from Objectivism. Reason based on rational perception of reality and performed logically, is man's only tool that enables him to survive and prosper. I can't think of any description that reason is a means of perception. Following are the definitions:

"Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]

Reason or "reasoning" is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad. It is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination"
And:
"Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof. It may also refer to a particular system of religious belief.[1] The term 'faith' has numerous connotations and is used in different ways, often depending on context"

As to man's evolution being purely a random process or set of random events, I'm not going to get into that quagmire with you. I will only say that your description of evolutionary process is incorrect, based on empirical evidence and experimentation. I fully understand that your definition is largely based on the Biblical--that God created man in his own image. But you can have no idea or concept of what God's image is, since you believe that God is unknowable and unfathomable except as revealed to the writers of your Bible.

Essentially, we're going to have a really tough time communicating until we can reach agreement on our language and accepted definitions. Your belief system of knowledge is going to keep butting heads with my fact system of knowledge. That doesn't mean that I won't continue to try, but I would ask that you do a little work on your own in reaching a little more in depth understanding of Objectivism. I was raised in your religion/faith/system until I reached a level of cognitive growth that recognized the contradictions in that system and understand it fully.

It's only fair that I ask that you put yourself on an equal footing by studying just a little of what you're arguing against.

.

I'm having a hard time deriving your point here. "I am" recognizes one's self as being independent of the rest of the universe, but doesn't really describe one's relationship to the rest of the universe positionally except to identify as being separate. The existence of Time, however, indicates that our position with relation to the rest of the universe is in flux, meaning that we are in fact moving. So the question then becomes are we moving towards any particular goal or end state of our own volition. The whole notion of value is derived solely because we evaluate two positions in relation to a third objective point of reference, valuing the one which gets us closer to the objective as being of more value. Thus identifying that objective or end goal becomes of utmost importance in philosophical endeavors, because it then becomes the measure of value. Thus your statement "I still am unable to place a value on reading AS except as ' more valuable than whatever else I could have been doing.'" only says to me that you believe yourself to be closer to your goal as a result of reading AS yet you do not elaborate on what that end goal is and leave significant doubt to the reader that you know what that goal is. I find that curious.

"Conservatively speaking the value of objectivism is 'without measure.'"

What you essentially assert is that you haven't attempted to conceive of any possibility where an alternate view would get you closer to your goal. The curious part of this is that your previous statement admits that you haven't conceived of the actual goal you are pursuing. Personally, I find it difficult to evaluate the value of any particular decision without knowing my end goal. If you have found a way around this, I welcome your input.

Correct. The difference is in the premises in which one "has faith". They can either be sound, or not.

The scientific method is a perfect example of the exercise of faith in determining reality. One uses logic to build upon what one knows in order to derive a potential future event and its probability. Then one constructs a test in order to verify the hypothesis. But the construction of the test and its actual performance are based on faith itself. The results only confirm to us whether or not our logic was sound in the first place.

"I would argue that you have faith in reason."

I can't really get behind that statement. I can absolutely assert that there are things I know with almost perfect confidence and that the derivation of such were the result of reason. I can also absolutely assert that there are some things I started out believing first (based on faith) and which subsequent experience and logic confirmed to be true. My children sometimes have to take what I say to be authoritative, like "that hot pan will burn you". Until they touch the pan, they take my statement based on their faith in my position as their caretaker and based on my expressed love for them (reason extrapolated into expectation for future).

"Help me understand how reason isn't self-contradictory if two men can reason to opposing positions."

I don't assert any conflict between reason and faith. The real question is one of premises. One can have faith that one's self is the greatest thing since sliced bread: see our current President. Because his faith is based on a false premise it is void. Did Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak believe that they had a product that was of such benefit to the rest of the world that it would be commercially viable? Yes. But they had no proof of such until after they founded Apple Computers and were several years into selling their products. They could certainly go back and analyze or use reason to determine that their faith in their own abilities - questionable at first - was sound because they could see the results. But one should contrast this with the vast majority of other entrepreneurs who held similar views of themselves and yet failed. Did this show that faith itself is a false concept? No. Just that their object of faith failed to hold up to scrutiny, ie their premises were flawed.

Again, faith is the principle which allows one to build on reason to project into the future and move one to act. It in no way precludes or excludes the exercise of reason. Faith is what allows us to proceed forward based on imperfect information about the future, but it in no way dictates what that future will be. Reason allows us to extrapolate likely results for projection and is in this area exclusive to faith, which must rely on reason's results!

The questions you have to be honest with yourself about are related to 'how you know what you assert'.

In the absence of objective evidence, your assertions are beliefs (faith) comprised of your subjective presumptions. As a matter of faith, your belief has no more credence than any other assertion without objective evidence to support it.

Drill back into your beliefs and, at each level, ask yourself, "how do I know that?" You'll find where you believe just because you want to believe; or, you'll eventually reason your way out of faith's web of false alternatives to ideas that are supported by the evidence of existence.

Yes, that helps.

registration of guns is wrong;;; registration of sex offenders is right.
the technique of registration, applied to guns, is like pretending that
they are like sex offenses. . this is an inappropriate pretense
and I disagree with it.
I suppose that I was not clear. . make sense now? -- j
.

john; This an issue, or a couple of issues in which I find a lot of disagreement with your positions.
First of all, the Constitution as well as the Objectivist view of the right of self defense are quite clear not permitting any 'infringement' of the 'right to bear arms and the associated right to self defense.

What the Hell that has to do with the right to privacy of a sex offender is beyond me. While we may wish to afford a sex offender privacy after he's paid his debt to society, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the right to bear arms and the right to self defense.