On Jan 16, 2008 1:22 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 16 January 2008 11:11:00 Ed Murphy wrote: > > Goethe wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote: > > >> Iammars wrote: > > >>> The statement here boils down to "Is Steve Wallace a Nomic?" since > if > > >>> Steve Wallace is a Nomic, the statement is true, where as if Steve > > >>> Wallace isn't a Nomic, the answer is false. > > >> > > >> This misses the possibility that Steve Wallace might be the > appropriate > > >> medium through which to contact some nomic. > > > > > > Can't it be judged on the preponderance of the evidence that e isn't > one? > > > > > > (It bugs me that inquiry case judges feel obliged to consider every > > > remote possibility. I prefer "the evidence is for X, of course there > is > > > some twisted and remote logic sequence that would allow Y, but since > > > that's so remote and there's no evidence for it, X.") > > > > This is not so remote a possibility; for all we know, pikhq and > > Steve Wallace may have met in the course of playing some other > > nomic. What bugs me is that judges don't always ask simple questions > > and enter the answers (or lack thereof) into evidence, e.g. > > > > Judge> pikhq, is Steve Wallace a contact point for any nomic > > (in the traditional sense of "nomic")? > > > > pikhq> Not that I know of. > > > > Judge> So noted. This should be overturned only on the grounds > > of positive evidence that pikhq is mistaken or lying. > > Insofar as I'm aware, Steve Wallace is not the contact point for any > nomic, > except perhaps himself (as this case will estabilish). > > Does he play any Nomic at all?
-- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
