This is the Subjectivist repeating the same fallacy with increasing emotionalism -- logic is so "intolerant" of subjectivism. It isn't a matter of a "your opinion versus mine". Reasons matter. Reasons do not become irrelevant as a "matter of opinion". His "criticism" of the author's description of the "right to an opinion" fallacy in fact misrepresented it. We start with the facts, not Blarman's argument and subjectivist "perspective" that all is "opinion". The irony is that his misrepresentation committed the fallacy. This was all previously described in simple factual terms, which anyone can read, not his invented "name-calling, strawman arguments, and character assassination".

The pattern to your arguments is misrepresentation. When you post something here it is not exempt from analysis or rejection. That does not mean that you don't have a right to whatever opinions you feel like, but your opinions are not self-justifying. If you don't want to be responsible for what you write here then don't write it. There are no exemptions for "opinion".

There are, however, limits to what is appropriate on an Ayn Rand forum in stubbornly repeating arbitrary pronouncements and personal attacks.

The common terminology "crimes against logic" and "no logical right" used in the book and elsewhere obviously do not refer to the concept of political rights. The book explicitly distinguishes epistemology from political rights. It doesn't mean there are rights in addition to political rights as something else in the same genus: They are entirely different concepts. One is not an extension of the other. That is why "There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions."

The book does not reject a political right to believe whatever one wants to. Quite the contrary. The fallacy it describes is that of invoking a political right to having an opinion as a substitute for logical standards of validity. That is the whole point. The book's description and illustration of the fallacy is explicit and clear. It rejects conflation of the two different uses of the word. Having a political right to hold an opinion does not justify what it asserts and does not make it immune to criticism, as if there were no right to reject it (either in logic or by political right).

This has been explained several times in this thread. There is no excuse for anyone to go off on a tangent dropping context and dodging the explanation of the "right to an opinion" fallacy by dramatically wrapping himself in "political rights" while playing equivocal word games and crying victim, which is the fallacy the author is talking about. How ironic. No one told Blarman he had no right to criticize, it was simply pointed out that his false accusations committed the fallacy.

But understanding this requires the ability to think in concepts and their meaning tied to reality, not rationalizing with word manipulation and floating abstractions.

The scope of committing the fallacy is much deeper than a case by case equivocation over "rights" in particular arguments. Philosophical subjectivists at root equate a "right" to an opinion with a supposed validity or epistemological value for anything they assert as a matter of principle. This is typical, for example, in religion. They overtly exempt themselves from logical standards while trying to undermine what they don't like as nothing more than opinion.

They commit the fallacy in the very basis of their subjectivist thinking. They demand that whatever they say be taken seriously and just as good as anything else because they say it, then demand exemption from rejection or criticism. It's no surprise that such a subjectivist would try deflect the very principle of the right to an opinon fallacy by claiming it is "circular". They do not recognize the principle of objectivity.

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

It's your opinion vs mine. And that is the entire point of my criticism of the author's claim. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't consider the author nor his arguments authoritative, so any logical fallacy he claims to invent is subject to further scrutiny. I accept neither your opinion nor his as taking precedent over my own. The products of my mind - my opinions, conclusions, hypotheses, postulations, etc. - are all mine and I give no man authority to otherwise subject any such to their personal approval before airing them. I don't care if you disagree with me, I have the right to disagree - to view things from my own personal experiences and knowledge. To presume a station that somehow you have any right to censor my views according to your subjective opinion is arrogant, coercive and intolerant. Period.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest in my disagreement. It is not my problem if it offends your sensitivities and prejudices. Reality does that sometimes. I didn't evade anything either. I laid out my case in precise terms but I don't answer to you as the arbiter.

If you want to persuade me that I have misinterpreted something, start with trying to understand my argument first instead of simply resorting to name-calling, strawman arguments, and character assassination. Only when you see things from my perspective will you begin to see where other things you have noted can fill in the holes - and not a moment sooner.

"Is ewv the one down voting you as though you can not be free to make an opinion on the book and of his comments?"

Yes, but this isn't his first time. Look throughout many other posts and you may see a pattern in his arguments.

ewv seems to believe that there are rights other than political rights with his statement
"There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions."
By definition rights are defined with respect to the freedom one has to act in a social (political) context. There exist only political rights.
Is ewv the one down voting you as though you can not be free to make an opinion on the book and of his comments?

My sympathy, ewv. It's the old story, "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with facts."

An "opinion" is a conclusion or judgment on incomplete evidence. Sometimes it is given a more honorable interpretation, as when the Supreme Court hands down its "opinion". For common folk it's just a "feeling" about a subject without an objective evaluation. Surely everyone has a political right to think and opine anyway they like, along with the right to say and write anything they want (with a few exceptions).

A pure, unsupported "opinion" can certainly be expressed but has no standing as an assertion of truth in reality without proof. The fact of its being an opinion is true; that does not give the content or substance of that opinion any validity without proof in reality. I can SAY that 2 plus 2 is 5. It's true that I've said it. It does not make the equation correct.

Our wonderful brains, so skilled in rational thought, are even more adept at desperate rationalizations to save face and not admit being wrong. And what drives those defenses? The resident memes.

And as we know, relying on emotions alone does not yield valid judgments. Check the premises.

Oh, what a tangled web they spew
Who logic from debate eschew. -- Kate Jones

If people could only take pride and pleasure in finding errors in their own thought structure so as to attain a higher level of objective truth instead of going on the attack against those who can contribute to a better understanding of reality... As Ayn Rand said, there is no conflict of interest among rational men.

Baseless opinions oblivious to all response is worthless. Your continuing misrepresentation of the book's description of the logical fallacy you are committing is dishonest. Your evasive refusal to address the reasons given in rejecting you "opinion", your rationalistic obfuscation, and your false personal attacks are dishonestly unresponsive.

They are ironically repeating the same pattern on this same page, ironic because one of them stepped right into illustrating the logical fallacy this thread is about, then proceeded in the usual fashion: misrepresent, evade rational rebuttal, obfuscate with rationalism, personally attack, and invoke "opinion" as unassailable because it's opinion. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I took statements and quoted them verbatim. If the author of the book would care to clarify the blog post, I will listen to his arguments. If you have been granted authority to speak on his behalf, you may explain these statements. If not, your opinion of my opinion is just another opinion which - if one believes the quote - you don't have any "right" to offer. Oops.

I note that on a previous thread, I identified the fact that you do not support the First Amendment. Your view was that it allowed far too much leeway and freedom. Your support of this author's view would fall directly in line with that statement: you support the suppression of speech you disagree with. You would seek that anyone who wishes to express their opinion must go through you to do so. While I find those views consistent, I also find them antithetical to freedom.

I downvote you when your posts exude a belligerent attitude, fail to entertain basic logical structures, or arbitrarily cry "religion". I also upvote you when you present a cogent case - which you certainly have the capability to do. You have the intelligence to be a significant contributor, but lack the tolerance or patience to engage in profitable debate because you currently lack the capability or empathy to see something from someone else's point of view. This need not be a permanent mindset or restriction, however it will require actual work on your part to temper your impulses. It isn't as if any of us haven't been where you are, but we recognize that people are a lot more pleasant to be around when they aren't so interested in professing their own superiority that they actually listen to the ideas coming from others.

Mike, what edition of Giddens' book are you referring to? The chapter organizations differ so it's hard to know what you are referring to as "Chapter 20" on scientific method.

That you are misrepresenting the book is fact; that is not mere "opinion", as has been demonstrated and carefully described to you, which you refuse to acknowledge. It is not "diatribe", as anyone can see. You are in fact wrong. Your insistence on your "opinion" in spite of that is an example of the fallacy the book describes. Your tortured rationalizations insisting that the author said the opposite of what he said does not change that. His logic is not "circular". You have not refuted anything. Your arbitrary religious method of thinking and pleading that it be taken seriously in a bizarre claim to the primacy of your opinions is all through your posts. You are a subjectivist. It is not logic. Neither is the usual religious cadre 'downvoting' posts in support of logic on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum.

They aren't "exploiting reality", they are ginning up and exploiting fear in the name of "science". We are discussing that; their ideology is inseparable from both their "science" and politics.

"Apocalyptic ideology" is not "unrelated" to the climate hysteria "science" movement.

Reality: water vapor is 95% of greenhouse affecting elements; CO2 constitutes only 2.6%; human activities contribute 4% of total CO2 production, so we affect greenhouse heating by about .01%. Those numbers are facts, regardless what side of the debate you're on. Even if the human race disappeared, it would have little effect on CO2 production.

More reality: ice cores show that with past rises in temperature, CO2 content of the atmosphere rose AFTER the start of the temperature rise, not before. Since we've been coming out of the "little ice age" for several hundred years, the rise we're witnessing appears to be business as usual.

Yes, actually, the author did state that and I quoted it verbatim from the blog.

Criticism is opinion. So is speculation. It is positing what may be prior to any test. And contrary to the author's assertion, everyone has the right to an opinion. This should not be confused with any conclusion about the validity of said opinion, however, and the author is asserting that one may have an opinion only after it has been validated. This is a circular argument.

"Your criticism was false and irrelevant"

Your opinion is duly noted. ;)

"And you reveal why: You want to be taken seriously in your mystical "postulation of the object",

Wow. Another diatribe bringing up religion when it was never the object of a post. It must be really frightening to be you. All those ghosts floating around all the time, just jumping out to say boo every time you turn your head. You must live in constant fear, sweaty-faced and jumping at every sound. A horror flick to you would be a Catholic liturgy (though I have to say they would bore me to death). Dude, get a grip.

"There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions."

I agree, but this is not what the author stated as quoted in the blog. The author specifically asserted that there was no fundamental right to opinion. That's his opinion and I disagree. And I'd love to see either him or you try to take away my right to disagree.

"apocalyptic ideology "
No matter if we're talking about something completely unrelated, you keep going back to that because that point is wrong and easy to refute.

I do not follow this. I don't think you're responding to the part about political consequences of people exploiting reality to promote socialism. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems like you're just defaulting back to one straw man, i.e. doom and hysteria, that's easy to refute, even though we're not discussing that point.

The social sciences are notorious for their ideological non-science, which has been well documented and even illustrated with spoofs relying on their own lack of rational standards and which demonstrate the point. It is good that some try and do good work, but social science has a terrible reputation and even at its best has a long way to go to reach the stature of physics and its accomplishments.

That some physicists promote bizarre speculations in the name of science is also true, but it isn't true that "social science is more scientific than physics" and that physics is "presented whole and complete, without development". The social sciences have long been defensive in comparison to the 'hard' sciences like physics and that assertion from Giddens is an example.

The discussion of "science" you quoted from Giddens emphasizes ideological rationalists, starting with the notorious Comte. Whatever methods he later describes (you don't say which edition of the book that appears in as Chapter 20) that history is no argument that sociology is in fact scientific.

Physics texts do describe historical development along with completed theories on different aspects of the subject. It can properly do that because physics has spectacularly successful comprehensive theories in a way that the social sciences do not.

Physics books properly do not include Kuhn because his half century old attempt to replace philosophy of science with the sociology of scientists is not relevant to understanding physics. Everyone is routinely taught how \breakthroughs have expanded knowledge, beginning with the most elementary mechanics such as Galileo's inclined plane and pendulums, but it is destructive to misconstrue that as physics being a succession of exploded fallacies.

As we have discussed before, however, there is inadequate discussion in the typical text books of how discoveries in physics were made and reasoned. Major experiments are described or summarized, with names and dates given, when major principles are introduced, but not the thought processes that led to them. How to do it is explained or illustrated in more advanced courses in engineering or physics (especially graduate work), but it isn't enough for understanding how knowledge of physics has historically and conceptually grown to become what it is and to conceptually explain its current level of understanding, with much of it left as a body of equations and methods for solving problems.

The"denier" rhetoric employed for moral intimidation isn't the only example. The incongruous hysterical appeals to "science" itself serve the same purpose. Their religiosity appeals to science as "authority" to badger people into submission.

There is a long line of ideologues attempting to cash in on the intellectual prestige of science to bludgeon people -- Scientology, Christian Science, Marx's Scientific Socialism, Comte's scientific Positivism for altruism-collectivism, etc.

One terrible affect of this package dealing is to undermine the value of science itself. People who don't understand how scientific inquiry works conclude that it's no different than any other fanaticism they encounter, and everybody learns to distrust anything called "science".

It's a classic case of appeal to speculated doom to frighten people into submission. A classic case of threats of fire and brimstone. The hysteria over repealing Obama's illegal Paris agreement is an example (illegal because he refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification). By their own arguments the agreement would have virtually no impact even if all countries followed it, which itself is unlikely. Yet we are repeatedly told, with wailing and hand ringing (and Liberal "concern") that dropping out will lead to widespread death and destruction.

You stated: "I'm going to fundamentally disagree with the very first notion put forth by the author: that the individual does not in fact have the right to an opinion" and "I find the assertion that there exists no fundamental right to the products of one's own mind not only founded, but patently ridiculous."

The author did not say that. No one said that. You have misrepresented the 'very first notion put forth by the author'. You missed the whole point of the discussion explicitly distinguishing between political rights and logical thought. That makes your own criticism false.

You then wrote: "If one can not offer one's criticism of a book as the author claims, one enters into a circular argument state, for the author's opinion then becomes no more valid than my own!".

No one said that you can't "offer" a criticism. Your criticism was false and irrelevant,f or the reason given. Claiming, in response to that, a right to offer a criticism you insinuate is being denied is the very equivocation that the author exposes in his description of the "right to an opinion" fallacy. Your "criticism" was factually incorrect. You misrepresented him and then did exactly what he described and explained as the fallacy. He made no "circular argument".

You don't acknowledge your error and wander off into another rationalistic excursion with bogus accusations of circular arguments. And you reveal why: You want to be taken seriously in your mystical "postulation of the object", i.e.a euphemism for the supernatural, as you have demanded many time before.

You won''t stick to the subject of Mike's thread and what the author in fact wrote about a logical fallacy you yourself are committing and trying to squirm out of with more rationalizations. There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions. That is a factual distinction, not mere opinion. That is not circular. Beginning with a recognition of reason and logic is not mere opinion. That is not circular.

It isn't true that "there is nothing to see here" as you "move on". We see a mystic evading logic and ducking out under a cloud of rationalistic obfuscation.

Don't write a piece for the gulch. Provide the proven data. I've yet to see anything that comes close to proving the planet is warming to any degree that will negatively affect the planet for thousands of years. Show me the proof.

Well stated!

Hear, hear, ewv! A great autopsy.