From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 16:20:35 MDT
On 25 Sep 2002 at 0:01, Dr Sebby wrote:
>
You idjit! ;~) You shoulda read the post. It actually has nothing to do
with Hermit and everything to do with a conversation between Michelle
and myself concerning things like knowledge, belief and truth (and the
necessary and essential conditions for them).
>
> ....STOOOOOOOOPPPP!!! even if someone asks you etc. please just
> stop! you know very well that if you keep presenting your side of the
> story, this will invite a response. this sort of behavior just serves
> to make it more and more clear who was the effective instigator or
> pourer-o-fuel-on-fire. can ya just quit for all our sakes??? please?
>
> drsebby.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: topic
> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:01:30 -0500
>
> On 23 Sep 2002 at 14:39, Michelle wrote:
>
> > [Joe] I know things that many others do not, just as many others
> know > things that I do not; it benefits us all for each of us to
> both share > our respective knowledge with others, and desire to
> receive knowledge > from others, for such sharing raises the average
> general level of > knowledge. > > [Michelle] If you assume that
> there is such a thing as Truth that > needs to be disseminated, then
> you assume that some have knowledge of > it and some don't. What is
> the best method for determining who has it > and who doesn't? How can
> we apply standards of truth and falsehood and > remain humble to the
> prospect that someone else might have a better > answer? It seems
> that the analysis of the underlying memes is the > most indicative of
> whether a position is formed from motivation to > Truth or motivation
> to meme propagation - the fundamental distinction > being openness to
> being proved wrong, correct? Anyone motivated by > Truth is open to
> being proven wrong, and anyone motivated by being > _right_ is
> certainly not open to being proven _wrong_. > > I always run into
> this when trying to have discussions about > anything... I am kept
> from assertion by the need to be unassertive to > serve the greater
> goal of finding Truth... what happens then? >
> I quote from Hermit's quotations of me in FAQ: Faith and truth in
> science Joe Dees provided an elegant formal summary: Quote: "The
> presence of evidence for a contention necessarily relegates adherence
> to that contention to the realm of empirical, and therefore probable -
> rather than absolute - knowledge; it is only in the absence of
> evidence that adherence to a contention can be considered to be belief
> or faith in it. Subjective transcendent conceptions of ultimacy are
> believed in, not known, as in fact are any ultimate conceptions, be
> they transcendent or immanent, since Popperian Falsifiability
> precludes the admittance of any absolute universal positive empirical
> truth-claim, and transcendent conceptions are by definition neither
> testable themselves nor derivable from other testable propositions.
>
> As Joe Dees described it, science seeks
> Quote:
> three measures of validity, and therefore of sufficiency, internal
> consistency (no reductio ad absurdums within the contention), external
> coherency (there is no logical conflict with contiguous truths) and
> faithful referential correspondence (the proposition seamlessly
> represents an observable state/process of affairs). There three are
> practically never found in isolation; when one applies, all three do.
>
>
>
>
> DrSebby.
> "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________ Send
> and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:59 MDT