----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:06 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> > 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. > > I don't see how one makes such a claim while the other one does not. > Unless you're reading that subtext into the declarations, neither set > of statements says anything at all about the faculties of possible > debate opponents. Let me give a parallel example. "This problem is unsolveable" vs "I cannot solve this problem." The first statement is a general statement concerning the nature of the problem. By saying this, one is claiming than anyone who states that they have solved this particular problem is making a false statement. Depending on the nature of the problem, you might be calling those that claim to have solved it ignorant, crackpots, etc. Let me give two examples of this. There is no algorithmic solution to the universal halting problem. Anyone who claims that they found one are wrong. There is no physical solution to the problem of turning heat energy directly into mechanical energy without also transfering a minimum amount of heat to a colder body. Anyone who claims to have invented such a machine is either a crackpot or working in an area of totally new physics. If they have a classical machine that is supposed to do it, they are a crackpot. By saying something is indefensabile one is saying that it is impossible that such a defence is impossible. Those who claim they have a defence are not dealing with reality for some reason or another. They may be ignorant, they may be arguing in bad faith, they may be in denial, they may not use reason properly. Or, they just might be idiots. > I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the > statements "The Iraq war is unjustifiable" and the *debate-style* > "Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss." No, there isn't. But, that particular statement puts a tremendous burdon of proof on the affirmative. They would have to show that it was impossible to construct a reasonable case for the war...not just show that the negative case is far stronger. > >> 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. > Look at this another way. Each person who holds a given opinion > behaves, most of the time, as though that opinion is not simply > correct, but Absolute Truth. Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch for folks who will not accept that they are sometimes wrong....unless they are Feynman and the subject is physics. Lord knows I argue tooth and nail. But, I work at precision in my arguements....particularly written arguements. I usually leave outs for reasonable people to disagree. It allows for a graceful retreat when necessary. Saying "I don't see the justification for something" allows someone to give the justification and then for me to pleasantly acknowledge it. I'm particularly careful when I argue with someone who's a scholar or an expert in a field we are debating. > You can add all the feel-good intellectual padding you want to a given > statement of position, including "in my view..." and "as I see it..." > and so on, but at the end of the day, what matters is *not* the > qualifiers; what matters is the seed: "... the Iraq war cannot be > justified." (Or whatever.) So, you are saying that different sets of words do not carry different sets of information? Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my book. > If you think you or anyone else behaves in a significantly different > fashion, I'd suggest you're being more than a little self-deluding. We > *must* assume that our opinions are valid. Valid is different from Absolute Truth. All one has to do is assume that there are some subjects upon which reasonable, moral people can differ; some subjects upon which they do not; and use different language to describe each so others know what you mean. You tend to use language that connotes the latter when discussing views that differ from you. >If we don't, we're paralyzed by self-doubt, incapable of action, and ultimately hold no concrete > views of any kind whatsoever on any subject. I've been able to deal in probabilities for years. > Let me ask you something, Dan. Are you going to throw that in my face > every time we have a discussion and end up disagreeing on a point? > Because if you are I'll just start filtering you rather than deal with > the callbacks. Okay? Throw what in your face? I tend to try to read posts for what the author intends. If the author refuses to use language in a manner that makes it easy, I just do the best I can. In the case of doubt, I tend to take the plain meaning of the words. > I'm suggesting that you find a different pile of grist for your > disagreement mill if you want to continue having discussions with me on > any subject. I'm getting a little tired of your sticking to something > *you* don't like and behaving as though that's a consistent position > from me. You are reacting to the homunculus you've created of me in > your head, and I'm asking you to stop it. I'm reacting to the plain sense of what you write. Tell me how I am to do more than guess when you mean something different than the nominal meaning...unless you specifically clarify or define your words. I was merely pointing out why I thought precision was helpful in fostering clear communications. If you don't like clarity, that's your call. I won't refuse to respond to you because I don't like your writing style. But, when forced to guess what you mean, I'll tend to favor the nominal meaning of the words. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
