At 04:46 PM 3/8/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>I would first like to hear how you think faith *creates* the model.
That question is so big I have to give a simplistic answer:
>>That seems to be a key issue.
>
>Very good. The same way reason does it...how does reason do it,
>anyway?
>>Agreed, but I can see a potential problem. What if we end up
>>redefining "faith" or "reason" to such an extent that they wouldn't
>>be recognized outside this discussion? Does it matter?
>
>That depends on what your purpose is. What is our purpose
>in making these rules?
To decide if we want to continue playing.
Rule #6 (proposed): If a player does not agree to a rule, he or she must withdraw from the game.
Rule #7 (proposed): The game ends if only one player remains.
>Rule #5: Players shall endeavor to express themselves as simply as
>possible to convey their point, but no simpler.
>
>The thing which makes me hesistate is that, as you know, "logical
>fallacies" are often very good decision making tools. Take "argument
>from authority" or "poisoning the well". These thing happen, and
>to mutual advantage. They ar fallacious in the pristine, cold world
>of formal logic but very useful in the hot, passionate living world.
>
>But, players shouldn't lie or try to confuse intentionally and without
>purpose, I agree. Intentionally and WITH purpose...hmm...
I'm not sure I want to play a game where fallacies are valid moves. I was hoping for illucidation, not merely entertainment.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/