>Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:20:29 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
>Subject: Re: virus: Faith and Reason
>
>At 11:59 AM 3/9/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>
>>>consistency checking. Are you sure faith creates models the same
>>>way? I don't see how offhand.
>>
>>Faith checks to see if an arguement is consistent with the
>>fundamentals. What does reason check against...the premises?
>>What is the difference between a premise and a fundamental?
>
>I don't know what you mean by "fundamental".
...a whole truckload of memes, in my mind, preceed <truth> in priority. I value <truth> very highly, don't get me wrong. But, given apparent conflict, I'll bend truth to accomodate.
Do you still want to play?
>>>To decide if we want to continue playing.
>>
>>Who is "we"? You and I, this group, all humanity, the multiverse?
>>My answer depends on that. It matters that "we" understand "us",
>>to be sure.
>
>The participants in this conversation.
You didn't really answer my question, did you?
>>>Rule #6 (proposed): If a player does not agree to a rule, he or
>>>she must withdraw from the game.
>>
>>Rule #6b (proposed): Each player interprets the rules for themselves.
>>Thus, a player may choose to leave the game at any time, or remain
>>in it, with complete freedom of expression.
>
>Are you giving players the freedom to break the rules?
>>>Rule #7 (proposed): The game ends if only one player remains.
>>
>>Disagree. Real games have no beginning and no end, no winners
>>and losers, and no points-keepers. What you are thinkink of is
>>an illusion, like chess. Computers are sufficient to play such
>>"games". It's the real games, which require the human touch,
>>which I'm interested in.
>
>This game is this conversation. If you want to remain in the game
>when you are the only one talking, I guess that is your prerogative.
Oh, I see your point now. Yes, you're right...the game ends if there is only one participant. The defininition of "participant" becomes critical doesn't it? How about this:
If you don't speak out, you are not a participant.
>>>I'm not sure I want to play a game where fallacies are valid moves.
>>
>>[shrug] We each define our own fallacies. Dennett made up "the
>>argument from incredulity" in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_. He
>>said it was a fallacy to say "X is false becuase I can't believe that
>>X might be true". The failure is one of imagination, not reality.
>
>If you want, we could rule out fallacies as invalid moves if and
>when they come up. I just wanted to let you know in advance that
>I'm unlikely to accept any of the standard logical fallacies.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------