----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% > >> provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase "In my > >> opinion..." before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? > > > >> Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] > >> 2 > >> + 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is > >> unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? > > > > But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two > > statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false. > > > > <true> > > The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable > > > > George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken > > <end true> > > > > <false> > > Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action > > <end false > > OK, but they're both sets of opinions, right? But, they are very different opinions....one claims that the people one is differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis. You tend to use words that indicate the former. If one says "I couldn't justify it", it allows the possibility that those folks who do justify it are reasonable people who happen to be mistaken on this particular point. >Whether or not the statements read differently, they are still expressions of personal > ideas, not hard facts. As I pointed out below, having two boxes isn't very helpful. The idea that the sun will come up in the East tomorrow morning is not a hard fact today. Things that happened in the past are no longer hard facts because they cannot be experimentally tested today. >My entire point is that it's unnecessary to > preface opinions with flags that say "opinion". But, the origional point, was that it would be very useful to use a nuanced expression of your opinion. Unless of course, you actually feel that only those folks that agree with you on all counts are reasonable and the rest of us are all idiots. > > Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, > > No, and > > Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance > > and a > > 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain. > > True. Not sure how that's part of my objection to feeling a need to > label every opinion as such, though. Because you write as though my statement that you just agreed with were not true. I've seen posts that make over the top claims that indicate that those that differ with you are all idiots. Then, the verisimilitude of the claims are challenged in well reasoned and supported posts. You then point out that they didn't prove you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, and seem to claim that as a victory. I see this type of pattern as contributing more heat than light to a subject. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
