From: Michelle (michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 16:50:52 MDT
That seems a little touchy...
The conversation that you responded to _I_ started - no big deal, I was
asking more about truth in general, and I know I was getting close to a
nerve, but it was handled well and without undue emotion, as far as I
thought.
I hope we can all forgive and move forward... it's a tenuous quiet we have
right now, a tentative reaching toward civil discourse again...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr Sebby" <drsebby@hotmail.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: virus: SHUT UP JOE!!! jesus christ!
>
> ....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