According to your logic above, it seems that all species are *much* more important than man. But, with most "liberal" logic, there's a paradox here. Let's explore it bit, shall we, by looking at the other side of the balance sheet you just created?
No, you miss the point. Friedman has become a slave to his theory, he is attempting to push his idea even to solve a situation it clearly cannot. There are good reasons to conserve whale stocks irrespective of your eccological position. Without sufficient stocks the whaling industry will go the way of the carrier pidgeon canning industry.
Tell me, Phill, what's *your* pricetag on a single *human* life? The entire gross global product is not enough? It's this kind of, well, muzzy-headed innumerate (yes, *Dr.* Hallam-Baker, *innumerate*) silliness that has our intellectuals believing the hoax, put convincingly enough to get published in "respected" academic places like "Social Text", that reality (physics, in this case) is optional.
Bob, you are way off base here. You are putting up a straw man. I have not endorsed the views of Social text, I've not even mentioned them. As I stated I am much more inclined to the logical positivist view than to the continental school of philosophy of which social text is an exemplar. My views on Derrida and his school are pretty negative, he has perhaps three good ideas and has been eeking them out with showmanship. I don't think that the deconstructionists are able to enter into a rational debate because they continually consider themselves obliged to challenge the terms of the debate. I'm fairly familiar with the debate that Social Text engages in and I consider it to be pretty bogus. They are arguing that language is insufficient for the purposes of their discussion so they create a new vocabulary without preconceptions. This project is doomed to failure since there is no means of defining the new language except in terms of the one in common usage they have rejected. So one might as well use plain language for arguement. This is why the Web is heavilly influenced by Hermenuetics, the point Sokal was making was actually one which is central to the work of Hiedegger and Gadamer. The establishment of a shared vocabulary is necessary for communication, communication defines being. It is entierely illogical for someone claiming to be establishing a theory of communication to do so by attempting to establish a private ontology. The Social Text people are refuted by their own work.
Can you say "Sophistry", boys and girls? I knew you could. No offense to the, er, numerate computer science people out there, but it seems that *Dr.* Hallam-Baker is living proof that you can get an entire *doctorate* in the field, and not learn to count.
Bob, you would be able to make your point better if you had an understanding of the principles you are discussing. I have some understanding of philosophical method and how to apply it. Your point on sophistry is a straw man. Solopcism is a paradox, it is an argument which demonstrates the inadequacy of our system of thought. Descartes and Hume argued the point at great length, whether mind or sensation is primary. I fail to see how you make the bridge from comments on Friedman to Social Text. I was merely pointing out that I consider Friedman to be overly ideological and that the certainty he claims for his results are not backed by empirical proof. He has described a theory which is impossible to prove or disprove because it is impossible to perform controlled experiments. Would the US ecconomy be stronger if Carter had won in 1980 instead of Reagan? Its impossible to say. If the libertarian fringe does not wish to remain so I suggest you try the following:- 1) Never ever start a post by directly stating that someone is an ignoramous. 2) Accept the fact that some people do not accept the axioms you are arguing from. 3) Differentiate between advancing your arguement and advancing your ego. The first is the most important. If you have no respect for the people you are arguing against you will utterly fail to convince them of anything.